Johnson v. Guzman Chavez

Supreme Court of the United States
594 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The detention of aliens who have reentered the United States without authorization after a prior removal, and are thus subject to a reinstated order of removal, is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which does not provide for a bond hearing, even while those aliens pursue withholding-only relief.

Facts:

Respondents are aliens who were previously ordered removed from the United States and were physically removed.
Subsequently, each respondent reentered the United States without authorization.
Upon discovering their presence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstated their prior removal orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
Each respondent expressed a fear of returning to the country designated in their removal order.
This initiated withholding-only proceedings to determine if they could be protected from removal to that specific country due to a credible fear of persecution or torture.
While these withholding-only proceedings were pending, DHS detained the respondents.
Respondents requested to be released on bond pending the outcome of their withholding proceedings.

Procedural Posture:

Respondents filed two habeas corpus proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
They sought a declaratory judgment that their detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and an injunction ordering the Government to provide them with individualized bond hearings.
The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the respondents in both cases.
The Government, the petitioner in the Supreme Court, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgments.
The Government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to resolve a circuit split.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which governs detention 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed' and allows for bond hearings, apply to aliens who are subject to reinstated orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Alito

No. The detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, not § 1226. The text of the statutes clearly delineates two phases of detention: § 1226 applies 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed,' while § 1231 applies after an alien is 'ordered removed' and the order becomes 'administratively final.' A reinstated removal order under § 1231(a)(5) is, by its nature, administratively final, as it is 'not subject to being reopened or reviewed.' Seeking withholding-only relief does not render this final order non-final; it is a separate, country-specific inquiry that addresses where an alien may be removed, not whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. The statutory structure confirms this, as the provisions for both reinstating removal orders and for statutory withholding are located within § 1231, the section governing post-removal-order detention and procedures.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

Yes, concurring in the judgment and joining the majority opinion except for footnote 4. The reasoning of the majority opinion correctly interprets the statutory scheme to place the detention of these aliens under § 1231. (The concurrence does not add substantive reasoning to the core holding but notes a disagreement on a jurisdictional point discussed in a footnote).

Dissenting - Justice Breyer

Yes. Section 1226 should govern the detention of these aliens. When an alien pursues withholding of removal, the question of whether the alien is 'to be removed' is still effectively pending. The opening clause of § 1231(a)(1)(A), '[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section,' indicates that the 90-day removal period does not begin if another provision in § 1231, such as the withholding provision, creates a legal obstacle to removal. Since the § 1231 removal period has not been triggered, the detention authority must logically fall under the pre-removal-period statute, § 1226, which permits a bond hearing. This reading aligns with the practical reality that a grant of withholding often prevents removal entirely, making the decision functionally equivalent to a pending decision on removability.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the statutory authority for detaining aliens with reinstated removal orders, foreclosing access to bond hearings for this specific group. By drawing a sharp distinction between the finality of a removal order ('whether' to remove) and the separate process of seeking withholding ('where' to remove), the Court reinforces the expedited and conclusive nature of reinstated removal orders. This ruling resolves a circuit split in favor of the government's position, strengthening its authority to detain without bond aliens who have previously violated an order of removal. It narrows the procedural avenues for relief available to such individuals and will likely result in their prolonged detention while withholding claims are adjudicated.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Johnson v. Guzman Chavez (2021)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature