Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573

Background

Arteaga-Martinez, a Mexican national, was removed in July 2012, reentered the United States without authorization in September 2012, and was detained in 2018 after ICE reinstated his prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a).
He applied for withholding of removal and CAT relief; an asylum officer found a reasonable fear and DHS referred him to withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge.
ICE detained him under §1231(a)(6) and provided no bond hearing; after ~4 months he sought habeas relief in district court challenging continued detention without a bond hearing.
The Government conceded that, under Third Circuit precedent (Guerrero-Sanchez), Arteaga-Martinez would be entitled to a bond hearing at six months where the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary.
The district court (and Third Circuit summary affirmance) ordered a bond hearing; an immigration judge later authorized release on bond. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether §1231(a)(6) requires such bond hearings and burdens.
Holding: The Supreme Court reversed — §1231(a)(6) does not require bond hearings after six months with the Government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden; constitutional claims and alternative Zadvydas-based release arguments were left to the lower courts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1231(a)(6) requires periodic (6‑month) bond hearings before IJ with clear‑and‑convincing Government burden	§1231(a)(6)’s references to detention, risk, and supervision support a statutory right to such bond hearings	Statutory text contains no requirement for bond hearings or burden; Government may but is not required to provide them	No — the statute does not mandate bond hearings or the clear‑and‑convincing burden imposed below
Whether Zadvydas’ canon of constitutional avoidance requires importing detailed bond procedures into §1231(a)(6)	Zadvydas recognized ambiguity in §1231(a)(6) and limited indefinite detention, so courts can impose procedural safeguards to avoid constitutional problems	Zadvydas’ limitation is narrower than the Third Circuit’s procedural mandates; Jennings restricts when avoidance may be used to graft procedures onto text	No — Zadvydas does not compel the specific bond‑hearing regime the courts below imposed; Jennings prevents reading such procedures into the text here
Whether procedural protections in ICE regulations suffice or due process requires IJ bond hearings	Arteaga‑Martinez: absence of individualized hearings raises serious due process concerns; bail hearings impose minimal burden and protect liberty	Government: regulatory custody reviews (90‑day, 6‑month panel, annual) provide adequate process; as‑applied constitutional claims remain available	Court declined to decide the constitutional due‑process question and left it to lower courts to address in the first instance
Whether petitioner is presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas because removal is not reasonably foreseeable	Arteaga‑Martinez: lengthy withholding-only proceedings make removal unforeseeable, so Zadvydas presumption of release applies	Government: disputes the application and says this claim was not the judgment below; merits not suitable for this Court now	Court declined to decide; remanded for lower courts to consider in first instance

Key Cases Cited

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (read §1231(a)(6) in light of due process to limit post‑removal detention to a period reasonably necessary to effect removal)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. _ (2018) (statutory text controls; constitutional‑avoidance canon applies only when statute is genuinely ambiguous)
Guerrero‑Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018) (held §1231(a)(6) entitles detainees to six‑month bond hearings with clear‑and‑convincing Government burden)
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. _ (2021) (held §1231(a) can apply to removed noncitizens who reenter and seek withholding‑only proceedings)