Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez

Last updated

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 11, 2022
Decided June 13, 2022
Full case nameTae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Antonio Arteaga-Martinez
Docket no. 19-896
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajoritySotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Gorsuch (Part I)
Concur/dissentBreyer
Laws applied
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Contents

Background

Aliens who have been ordered to be deported by immigration courts can be detained by the federal government, pending their removal from the country. The statute that authorizes such detention does not contain a set time limit for the detention, but in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court read in a six-month limitation to avoid what it perceived were constitutional issues. Antonio Arteaga-Martinez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing he was detained unlawfully due to the absence of a bond hearing. The district court granted his petition and ordered him released from detention, and after the federal government appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily affirmed, citing to its previous opinion in Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden. The government subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. [1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case and the companion case Garland v. Gonzalez on August 23, 2021. Oral arguments were held on January 11, 2022. On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit in a 8–1 vote, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas concurring, and Justice Stephen Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

2008 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Nielsen v. Preap, No. 16-1363, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the detention of legal immigrants with criminal histories. In a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the government has the power to detain immigrants at any time that have committed certain crimes that could lead to their deportation, even if those crimes occurred long in the past.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction council, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

  1. Ray, Shalini Bhargava (January 10, 2022). "Justices will revisit whether certain noncitizens in lengthy detention are entitled to bond hearings". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 14, 2022.