Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523

Background

Respondents were previously ordered removed, later reentered the U.S. without authorization, and DHS reinstated their prior removal orders under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(5).
After reinstatement each expressed a fear of return and were found to have a reasonable fear, triggering withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge.
While withholding-only proceedings were pending, DHS detained the respondents and denied bond; respondents sought bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a).
District Courts granted relief finding §1226 governed; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, creating a circuit split with other circuits treating §1231 as controlling.
The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that §1231 governs detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, so §1226 bond hearings are not required while withholding-only proceedings proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs detention of aliens with reinstated removal orders?	Guzman Chavez: §1226 governs because detention is "pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed".	Government: §1231 governs because aliens with reinstated orders are "ordered removed" and in the §1231 removal period.	Held: §1231 governs detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders under §1231(a)(5).
Do withholding-only proceedings make the question whether an alien "is to be removed" remain "pending" (thus invoking §1226)?	Guzman Chavez: Yes — because an IJ/BIA could bar removal to the designated country, the question of removal remains unresolved.	Government: No — withholding-only relief is country-specific and does not vacate the removal order or bar removal to other countries.	Held: Withholding-only proceedings are country-specific and do not change the antecedent question whether the alien is ordered removed; §1226 does not apply.
Are reinstated removal orders "administratively final" after reinstatement, or does initiating withholding-only proceedings undo that finality?	Guzman Chavez: Initiating withholding-only proceedings makes the reinstated order non-final.	Government: Reinstated orders remain administratively final; withholding-only proceedings address a separate question and end with a separate order.	Held: Reinstated orders are administratively final; withholding-only proceedings do not negate that finality.
Does the §1231(a)(1)(A) phrase "Except as otherwise provided in this section" mean withholding-only protections delay start of the removal period?	Guzman Chavez: Yes — the exception includes the withholding restriction, so the removal period does not begin while withholding proceedings are pending.	Government: No — that clause references other §1231 provisions that expressly extend the removal period; the withholding provision concerns where an alien may be removed, not whether removal applies.	Held: The "except" clause addresses other §1231 provisions that affect the removal period's length; it does not convert withholding-only proceedings into a trigger keeping detention under §1226.

Key Cases Cited

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (distinguishing asylum from withholding; withholding bars removal to particular country only)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (post-removal detention limited by constitutional concerns; presumptively six-month review period)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. _ (2020) (grant of withholding relief does not disturb or vacate final order of removal)
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) (reinstated removal orders insulated from reopening and certain discretionary relief)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. _ (2018) (procedural and jurisdictional principles governing detention challenges during removal proceedings)