Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
The Facts
Alejandro Arteaga-Martinez, a Mexican national ordered removed, was detained under Section 1231(a)(6) when his removal could not be executed. After six months, the Ninth Circuit held he was entitled to a bond hearing under the statute's interpretation in Zadvydas v. Davis.
The Issue
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231 authorizes indefinite mandatory detention of noncitizens who have been granted withholding of removal
The Rules
8 U.S.C. § 1231 - detention during removal period
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) - limits on indefinite detention
Statutory construction of 'removal period' for noncitizens who cannot be removed
The Application
When Arteaga-Martinez challenged his detention under Section 1231(a)(6) after six months, the Court analyzed whether the statute's text supported the Ninth Circuit's bright-line rule entitling him to an automatic hearing. Finding no statutory language that establishes a temporal trigger for bond hearings, the Court held that the judiciary cannot impose procedural safeguards that Congress did not write into the statute. Although noncitizens retain habeas corpus remedies to challenge detention on individualized grounds, the statute does not categorically require periodic hearings based solely on the passage of time. This interpretation restored the detention scheme to its statutory text rather than allowing judge-made categorical rules to override legislative silence.
The Conclusion
**The Court reversed, holding that Section 1231(a)(6) does not require bond hearings after six months.** Noncitizens may seek relief through habeas corpus on individualized grounds, but no categorical rule entitles them to periodic hearings.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held that noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) after a final order of removal are not entitled to automatic bond hearings after six months of detention. The ruling rejected a judicially created bright-line rule as inconsistent with the statutory text.
Facts
Alejandro Arteaga-Martinez, a Mexican national ordered removed, was detained under Section 1231(a)(6) when his removal could not be executed. After six months, the Ninth Circuit held he was entitled to a bond hearing under the statute's interpretation in Zadvydas v. Davis.
Issue
Whether Section 1231(a)(6) entitles detained noncitizens to automatic bond hearings after six months of post-removal-order detention.
Rule
Statutes authorizing detention do not implicitly require bond hearings at fixed intervals absent clear statutory text. Courts may not impose procedural requirements on detention that the statute itself does not mandate.
Analysis
When Arteaga-Martinez challenged his detention under Section 1231(a)(6) after six months, the Court analyzed whether the statute's text supported the Ninth Circuit's bright-line rule entitling him to an automatic hearing. Finding no statutory language that establishes a temporal trigger for bond hearings, the Court held that the judiciary cannot impose procedural safeguards that Congress did not write into the statute. Although noncitizens retain habeas corpus remedies to challenge detention on individualized grounds, the statute does not categorically require periodic hearings based solely on the passage of time. This interpretation restored the detention scheme to its statutory text rather than allowing judge-made categorical rules to override legislative silence.
Conclusion
**The Court reversed, holding that Section 1231(a)(6) does not require bond hearings after six months.** Noncitizens may seek relief through habeas corpus on individualized grounds, but no categorical rule entitles them to periodic hearings.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support