The Supreme Court heard two cases Tuesday regarding long-term detention of noncitizens who enter the country without authorization and whether they are entitled to bond hearings while their immigration cases are adjudicated.
Both cases, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, focus on immigrants who had repeatedly entered the United States illegally and challenged long-term detentions extending more than six months. Their lawyers argue they are entitled to a bond hearing for a judge to decide whether their detainment should continue.
The heart of the lawsuits centers on a 1996 immigration statute that states an unauthorized immigrant “may” remain in detention for an extended period. Gonzalez’s defense argues that because it says “may” be detained instead of “shall,” it implies discretion by an immigration judge and entitles them to a hearing.
Justices in the liberal camp pushed back against President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, which argued such detentions typically average less than six months.
LEAKED PHOTOS REVEAL BIDEN’S DISASTROUS DETENTION OF MIGRANTS IN ARIZONA
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who attended the hearing virtually, argued that a 2001 precedent established in Zadvydas v. Davis found the U.S. cannot detain “someone indefinitely without a reason.”
Attorney Austin Raynor representing the DOJ said a lower court altered the statute, finding Zadvydas requires bond hearings after six months of detainment.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned early during the hearing whether the court “crossed that bridge in Zadvydas,” positing “if we’ve already decided that the statute can be expanded beyond its plain terms” in the 2001 case.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Martinez, a Mexican citizen, has contended that if he is removed from the U.S., he will be subjected to torture or persecution.
Pratik A. Shah, the attorney for Martinez, argued U.S. government officials determined his client “had demonstrated a reasonable fear of torture if removed to his home country, a threshold standard that only 13% of applicants satisfy.”
A decision in the case is expected this summer.
