Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)
Arteaga-Martinez, a citizen of Mexico, was removed and reentered the U.S. His earlier removal order was reinstated and he was detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a). Arteaga-Martinez applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An asylum officer determined he had established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if returned to Mexico. DHS referred him for withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge. After being detained for four months, Arteaga-Martinez filed a habeas corpus petition, challenging his continued detention without a bond hearing. The government conceded that Arteaga-Martinez would be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention based on circuit precedent. The district court ordered a bond hearing. The Third Circuit affirmed. At the bond hearing, the Immigration Judge authorized his release pending resolution of his application for withholding of removal.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Section 1231(a)(6) does not require the government to provide noncitizens, detained for six months, with bond hearings in which the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. Section 1231(a)(6) “does not permit indefinite detention” but “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States”; it allows the government to provide bond hearings but does not require them. The Court remanded for consideration of Arteaga-Martinez’s alternative theory.
The government is not required to provide noncitizens, detained for six months, with bond hearings in which the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al. v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 19–896. Argued January 11, 2022—Decided June 13, 2022
Respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez is a citizen of Mexico who was removed in July 2012 and reentered the United States in September 2012. U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a warrant for Arteaga-Martinez’s arrest in 2018. ICE reinstated Arteaga-Martinez’s earlier removal order and detained him pursuant to its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U. S. C. §1231(a). Arteaga-Martinez applied for withholding of removal under §1231(b)(3), as well as relief under regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, based on his fear that he would be persecuted or tortured if he returned to Mexico. An asylum officer determined he had established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, and the Department of Homeland Security referred him for withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge.
After being detained for four months, Arteaga-Martinez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in District Court challenging, on both statutory and constitutional grounds, his continued detention without a bond hearing. The Government conceded that Arteaga-Martinez would be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention based on circuit precedent holding that a noncitizen facing prolonged detention under §1231(a)(6) is entitled by statute to a bond hearing before an immigration judge and must be released unless the Government establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the noncitizen poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community. The District Court granted relief on Arteaga-Martinez’s statutory claim and ordered the Government to provide Arteaga-Martinez a bond hearing. The Third Circuit summarily affirmed. At the bond hearing, the Immigration Judge considered Arteaga-Martinez’s flight risk and dangerousness and ultimately authorized his release pending resolution of his application for withholding of removal.
Held: Section 1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. Pp. 4–10.
(a) Section 1231(a)(6) cannot be read to require the hearing procedures imposed below. After the entry of a final order of removal against a noncitizen, the Government generally must secure the noncitizen’s removal during a 90-day removal period, during which the Government “shall” detain the noncitizen. 8 U. S. C. §§1231(a)(1), (2). Beyond the removal period, §1231(a)(6) defines four categories of noncitizens who “may be detained . . . and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” There is no plausible construction of the text of §1231(a)(6) that requires the Government to provide bond hearings with the procedures mandated by the Third Circuit. The statute says nothing about bond hearings before immigration judges or burdens of proof, nor does it provide any other indication that such procedures are required. Faithfully applying precedent, the Court cannot discern the bond hearing procedures required below from §1231(a)(6)’s text. Pp. 4–6.
(b) Arteaga-Martinez argues that §1231(a)(6)’s references to flight risk, dangerousness, and terms of supervision, support the relief ordered below. Similarly, respondents in the companion case, see Garland v. Gonzalez, 594 U. S. ___, analogize the text of §1231(a)(6) to that of 8 U. S. C. §1226(a), noting that noncitizens detained under §1226(a) have long received bond hearings at the outset of detention. Assuming without deciding that an express statutory reference to “bond” (as in §1226(a)) might be read to require an initial bond hearing, §1231(a)(6) contains no such reference, and §1231(a)(6)’s oblique reference to terms of supervision does not suffice. The parties agree that the Government possesses discretion to provide bond hearings under §1231(a)(6) or otherwise, but this Court cannot say the statute requires them.
Finally, Arteaga-Martinez argues that Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, which identified ambiguity in §1231(a)(6)’s permissive language, supports a view that §1231(a)(6) implicitly incorporates the specific bond hearing requirements and procedures imposed by the Court of Appeals. In Zadvydas, this Court construed §1231(a)(6) “in light of the Constitution’s demands” and determined that §1231(a)(6) “does not permit indefinite detention” but instead “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” 533 U. S., at 689. The bond hearing requirements articulated by the Third Circuit, however, reach substantially beyond the limitation on detention authority Zadvydas recognized. Zadvydas does not require, and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, does not permit, the Third Circuit’s application of the canon of constitutional avoidance. Pp. 6–8.
(c) Constitutional challenges to prolonged detention under §1231(a)(6) were not addressed below, in part because those courts read §1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing. Arteaga-Martinez’s alternative theory that he is presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas also was not addressed below. The Court leaves these arguments for the lower courts to consider in the first instance. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7. Pp. 8–10.
Reversed and remanded.
Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined as to Part I. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
JUDGMENT ISSUED |
Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined as to Part I. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. |
Argued. For petitioners: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Pratik A. Shah, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of petitioners Tae D. Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Tae D. Johnson, et al. submitted. |
CIRCULATED |
The record from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit and for the U.S.D.C. Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) has been electronically filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Former Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members filed (also in 20-322). VIDED. |
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed (also in 20-322). VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Asian-Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, et al filed (also in 20-322). VIDED. |
Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, et al filed (also in 20-322). VIDED. |
Brief of respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez filed. |
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit. |
ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, January 11, 2022. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
Brief of petitioners Tae D. Johnson, et al. filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Tae D. Johnson, et al. |
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 14, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 22, 2021. |
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020. |
Reply of petitioners Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of petitioners Matthew T. Albence, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until May 19, 2020, granted. |
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from May 12, 2020 to May 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Brief of respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez in opposition filed. |
Brief of respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez in opposition filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 22, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 23, 2020 to April 22, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 23, 2020. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 20, 2020 to March 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 20, 2020) |
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and shouild not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 20, 2020) |
Application (19A515) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 17, 2020. |
Application (19A515) to extend further the time from December 18, 2019 to January 17, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito. |
Application (19A515) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until December 18, 2019. |
Application (19A515) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 18, 2019 to December 18, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito. |