Public policy made simple. Dive into our information hub today!

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: January 11, 2022
Decided: June 13, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Stephen Breyer (in part)
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer (in part)

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 13, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on January 11, 2022.

The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is not entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch as to part I. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Mexican citizen Antonio Arteaga-Martinez was under an order of removal and was in detention while his application to remain in the U.S. was being processed. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus questioning the constitutionality of his continued detention while his application was pending. The district court found for Arteaga-Martinez, citing the 3rd Circuit's holding in Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison that non-citizens held in immigration detention for a six-month period are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit affirmed. The United States government appealed to the Supreme Court.[2] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the right of non-citizens in immigration detention to a bond hearing.
  • The question presented: Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.[3]
  • The outcome: The court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding the U.S. government is not required to offer detained aliens bond hearings after six months of detention.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Antonio Arteaga-Martinez is a Mexican citizen who admits to having entered the United States on four separate occasions without inspection at the border. During his third entry in July 2012, Arteaga-Martinez was apprehended at the border and removed pursuant to an expedited-removal order. His fourth re-entry was in September 2012, after which he stayed in the United States until he was apprehended by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in May 2018. ICE reinstated Arteaga-Martinez's prior order of removal and Arteaga-Martinez was held in detention under 8 U.S. Code § 1231, which relates to the detention and removal of non-citizens ordered removed.[4]

    Before he could be removed, Arteaga-Martinez applied for a withholding and deferral of removal. He remained in detention while awaiting adjudication of his applications, and he subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of his ongoing detention while his applications were pending. The district court held that under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's ruling in Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison (2018), Arteaga-Martinez was entitled to a bond hearing as of November 4, 2018, six months from the start of his detention. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit affirmed. Arteaga-Martinez subsequently received a bond hearing, was granted and posted bond, and was released. The United States, through the solicitor general and acting director of ICE, appealed the 3rd Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.[2]

    History of 3rd Circuit's bond hearing requirement in Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison

    In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court examined how long the detention of a non-citizen subject to a removal order could last when the detainee's country would not accept the detainee's return. The court noted that 8 U.S. Code § 1231 set no time limit for such detention, but that a "statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem." The court read an implicit limitation into the statute and determined that a six-month period is presumptively reasonable. After that time, if the detained non-citizen can show that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future, and the government cannot respond with evidence to rebut that showing, the detained non-citizen must be released.[5]

    Subsequently, in Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit found that § 1231 held an implicit requirement that the detained non-citizen be given a bond hearing in front of an immigration judge after being detained for six months. In its rationale, the 3rd Circuit cited the Supreme Court's holding in Zadvydas, noting that the Supreme Court found § 1231 ambiguous regarding the due process protections required.[6][2]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[3]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.[7] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In an 8-1 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, holding an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is not entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The court remanded the case.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch as to part I. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part.

    Opinion

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

    “

    The issue in this case is whether the text of §1231(a)(6) requires the Government to offer detained noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention 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. It does not. ...

    The Jennings Court emphasized that the canon of constitutional avoidance is only applicable where a statute has “more than one plausible construction.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12). Here, there is no plausible construction of the text of §1231(a)(6) that requires the Government to provide bond hearings before immigration judges after six months of detention, with the Government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a detained noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. Section 1231(a)(6) provides only that a noncitizen ordered removed “may be detained beyond the removal period” and if released, “shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” On its face, 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 our precedent, the Court can no more discern such requirements from the text of §1231(a)(6) than a periodic bond hearing requirement from the text of §1226(a). See id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). Section 1231(a)(6) therefore cannot be read to incorporate the procedures imposed by the courts below as a matter of textual command. [7]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, writing separately to make three points. Justice Gorsuch joined as to part I.

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

    “

    First, we lack jurisdiction to hear this case. ... Because Arteaga-Martinez does not seek review of a final removal order or otherwise invoke §1252, and because his claim “aris[es] from” his removal proceedings, I would vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ...

    Second, as I have explained elsewhere, there is considerable historical evidence that the Due Process Clause does not “apply to laws governing the removal of aliens.” But even assuming the Due Process Clause extends to some aliens contesting their removability, it does not protect from detention an alien who, like Arteaga-Martinez, does not challenge his final removal order. ...

    Third, this case illustrates why we should overrule Zadvydas at the earliest opportunity. ... These three points notwithstanding, the Court’s opinion correctly interprets §1231(a)(6). Accordingly, I concur.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

    In his opinion, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “

    In my view, Zadvydas controls the outcome here. The statutory language is identical, which is not surprising, for this case concerns the same statutory provision. There are two conceivable differences between this case and Zadvydas, but both argue in favor of applying Zadvydas’ holding here. ... Since the Court remands this case for further proceedings, I would add that, in my view, Zadvydas applies (the Court does not hold to the contrary), and the parties are free to argue about the proper way to implement Zadvydas’ standard in this context, and, if necessary, to consider the underlying constitutional question, a matter that this Court has not decided.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. 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.[10]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[11] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[12]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, decided June 13, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez: On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit," filed January 17, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 19-896: Question Presented," accessed August 23, 2021
    4. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez: On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit," filed January 17, 2020
    5. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis, June 28, 2001
    6. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York County Prison, September 26, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/19-896.mp3
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 11, 2022
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    11. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    12. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Arteaga-Martinez&oldid=9117272"