determine whether the statute or regulation infringing on that interest is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. See id. The Circuit Courts that have addressed the constitutionality of § 236(c) have differed on the question of whether the right asserted by Hall is fundamental. See, e.g., Welch v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 213, 221 (4th Cir.2002) (right of alien to be free from mandatory detention is not a fundamental one); Kim v. Ziglar, 276 F.3d 523, 535 (9th Cir.2002) (“We are reluctant to uphold civil detention impinging on fundamental liberty interests, based on a government policy the need for which the implementing agency has itself questioned.”), cert. granted, 536 U.S. 956, 122 S.Ct. 2696, 153 L.Ed.2d 833 (2002). ; Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, No. 01-1616, 2003
recognizing a fundamental right to marry holding that the right to vote is fundamental recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding right to be fundamental