Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Albence v. Guzman Chavez)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argued: January 11, 2021
Decided: June 29, 2021
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
This article is about the court case previously known as Albence v. Guzman Chavez; it became Johnson v. Guzman Chavez when Tae Johnson became acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 11, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

The court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The case originated in a dispute over whether the respondents, a group of immigrants detained by the U.S. government pending deportation proceedings, could seek release in bond hearings before immigration judges. The government argued they could not seek release, because 8 U.S.C. 1231 subjected the immigrants to mandatory detention. The immigrants argued that 8 U.S.C. 1226 allowed them to seek release via bond hearings. The U.S. District Court held the respondents were detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226 and ordered the government to provide bond hearings. On appeal, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court's ruling.[2]
  • The issues: The case concerned the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the statutory authority under which the government detains immigrants seeking to overturn deportation after a reinstated removal order.[2][3]
  • The questions presented: "Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. 1226."[4]
  • The outcome: The court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, when a previously deported immigrant reenters the United States without lawful permission, the previous deportation order "is reinstated from its original date" and "is not subject to being reopened or reviewed." Additionally, the immigrant may not challenge the order except if he or she has "a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the countries designated in their removal orders."[2]

    The respondents in this case were a group of immigrants who entered the United States without lawful permission, were deported, and then re-entered without lawful permission. The immigrants were subject to deportation via reinstated removal orders. The respondents challenged the removal orders, claiming fear of persecution or torture in their native countries. The government was detaining the immigrants pending the outcome of proceedings regarding these claims.[2]

    Litigation

    The case originated in a dispute over whether the respondents could seek release on bond in hearings before immigration judges while the proceedings were pending. The government argued they could not seek release, because 8 U.S.C. 1231 subjected the immigrants to mandatory detention. The immigrants argued that 8 U.S.C. 1226 allowed them to seek release via bond hearings.[2]

    The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment, holding the respondents were detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226. The court ordered the government to provide bond hearings. The government appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.[2]

    8 U.S.C. 1226

    See also: Title 8 of the United States Code

    8 U.S.C. 1226 is titled "Apprehension and detention of aliens." Under the statute, the government may detain immigrants seeking to overturn deportation orders after a previous order's reinstatement "pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed." The law allows for discretionary release on bond.[2]

    8 U.S.C. 1231

    See also: Title 8 of the United States Code

    8 U.S.C. 1231 is titled "Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed." Under the statute, the government may detain immigrants seeking to overturn deportation orders after a previous order's reinstatement once the deportation order has been issued. The law also provides for mandatory detention during a 90-day deportation period.[2]

    Petitioners

    The petitioners included:

    • Matthew Albence, in his official capacity as acting director of ICE.
    • William Barr, in his official capacity as U.S. attorney general.
    • Russell Hott, in his official capacity as ICE field office director.
    • The Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review.[3]

    Respondents

    The respondents included:

    • Rogelio Amilcar Cabrera Diaz, Jennry Francisco Moran Barrera, and Rodolfo Eduardo Rivera Flamenco, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
    • Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, Danis Faustino Castro Castro, and Jose Alfonso Serrano Colocho.
    • Christian Flores Romero and Wilber A. Rodriguez Zometa (in the district court).[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioners presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:

    "Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. 1226."[4]


    Judge Pamela Harris, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, described the question as whether the respondents "have the right to individualized bond hearings that could lead to their release [from detention] during those proceedings. Answering that question requires that we determine the statutory authority under which the government detains noncitizens who seek withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated."[2]

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    The case transcript:

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[1]

    “ Federal immigration law contains various provisions authorizing the Government to detain aliens during the removal process. This case concerns two of them: 8 U. S. C. §1226 and 8 U. S. C. §1231. We are asked to decide which of those provisions applies to aliens who were removed from the United States but later reentered without authorization, were subject to reinstated orders of removal, and then sought withholding of removal based on fear of persecution in the particular countries designated by their removal orders. If the answer is §1226, which applies “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States,” then the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge. If the answer is §1231, which applies after the alien is “ordered removed,” then the alien is not entitled to a bond hearing. We conclude that §1231, not §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of removal.

    [6]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ This Court has an “independent obligation” to assess whether it has jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 514 (2006). We do not have it here. Congress has restricted our jurisdiction in removal cases. See 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 3). Under §1252(b)(9), we can exercise judicial review of “questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien” in only two circumstances. One is to review a final order of removal. §1252(b)(9). The other is to exercise an express grant of jurisdiction elsewhere in §1252. Ibid.; Jennings, 583 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3). Neither circumstance is present here.

    ...
    In light of this jurisdictional problem, the Court should vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. But “because the Court has held that we have jurisdiction in cases like these” and the Court’s opinion is otherwise correct, I join it except for footnote four. See Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 1). [6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    In their dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “

    Respondents in this case are noncitizens previously ordered removed from the United States. After leaving the United States, each of them later returned (illegally). The Government then reinstated their original removal orders. See 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(5). Each of the respondents argued to immigration authorities that the Government could not remove them because they reasonably feared persecution or torture in the country to which the Government sought to send them. And pursuant to the United States’ international commitments, the immigration authorities began the process of determining whether the Government should grant withholding-only relief (the withholding or deferral of removal). See §1231(b)(3)(A); 8 CFR §§208.16–208.18, 208.31, 241.8(e), 1208.16–1208.18, 1208.31, 1241.8(e) (2020).

    The question in this case is whether respondents are entitled to a bond hearing while immigration authorities engage in the lengthy process of determining whether respondents have the legal right (because of their fear of persecution or torture) to have their removal withheld. The Court points to two statutory provisions that might answer that question. The first, §1226, is a more general provision governing detention, and favors respondents. It says that “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States,” 8 U. S. C. §1226(a), the Government “may release the alien on . . . bond” or “conditional parole.” §§1226(a)(2)(A), (B); see also 8 CFR §§236.1(c)(8), 1236.1(c)(8) (authorizing parole where the alien has demonstrated that “such release would not pose a danger to property or persons” and he or she “is likely to appear for any future proceeding”). The second, §1231, is a provision that more specifically applies to “aliens ordered removed,” and can be read to favor the Government because it does not expressly provide for a bond hearing during what it calls the 90-day “removal period.” 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(2); see also 8 CFR §241.13(b)(2)(ii). The Government claims that §1231 applies to respondents and allows the Government to deny them bond hearings while their withholding-only relief proceedings take place.

    The Court agrees with the Government. In its view, respondents’ circumstances fall within the scope of what §1231 calls a “removal period.” §§1231(a)(1)(A)–(B). And it believes that section implicitly allows the Government to deny bond hearings during the 90-day removal period. See ante, at 7–8; §1231(a)(2). I agree that we have jurisdiction to review the decision below. See ante, at 8, n. 4; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (BREYER, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 30–31). In my view, however, respondents do not fall within the scope of §1231. Hence, §1231 does not apply. Rather, respondents’ circumstances are governed by the more general section that concerns the conditions of detention pending a final determination on removal. See §1226. And they are entitled to the bond hearings for which that general section provides. See §1226(a)(2). [6]

    		”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, decided June 29, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Chavez v. Hott, decided October 10, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Albence v. Guzman Chavez, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed February 15, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, "Questions presented," accessed June 29, 2021
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed January 12, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Guzman_Chavez&oldid=9117297"