Clark v. Martinez

Last updated
Clark v. Martinez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 13, 2004
Decided January 12, 2005
Full case nameClark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Martinez
Docket no. 03-878
Citations543 U.S. 371 ( more )
125 S. Ct. 716; 160 L. Ed. 2d 734; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 627
Argument Oral argument
Reargument Reargument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
Under §1231(a)(6), the Secretary may detain inadmissible aliens beyond the 90-day removal period, but only for so long as is reasonably necessary to achieve removal; a six-month presumptive detention period applies to inadmissible aliens.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceO'Connor
DissentThomas, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
8 U.S.C.   § 1231(a)(6)

Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case ending the detention of people who had been denied refugee status. They were kept in prison awaiting deportation even though they could not in fact be deported due to a political stalemate with Cuba. [1] An alien can be found inadmissible on the grounds of poor health, criminal history, substance trafficking, prostitution/human trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity, etc. [2] The deportation process requires a ruling from an immigration judge for violating immigration laws. [3] The case resolved conflicting rulings made by the 9th and 11th circuits on whether Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) [4] was applicable to inadmissible immigrants, Sergio Martinez and Daniel Benitez. The cases of Martinez and Benitez were later consolidated by the Supreme Court.

Contents

Zadvydas v. Davis stated that the government can detain admissible and admitted aliens only long enough beyond the 90-day removal period if necessary for deportation. If deportation is unforeseeable then the immigrant must be released. [5] Zadvydas v. Davis fails to define if immigrants inadmissible to the U.S. have these same protections.

The Supreme Court decision (7-2) found that Zadvydas v. Davis was in fact applicable to inadmissible immigrants. In the case of Martinez and Benitez where deportation to Cuba is implausible, further detention is unnecessary. [5] The court however did not grant constitutional protection from indefinite detention to inadmissible immigrants. [6]

History

Cubans Sergio Suarez Martinez and Daniel Benitez gained access to the US in June 1980 via the Mariel Boatlift. By the time they had applied for legal permanent residence through the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act; which allows Cubans who have been living in the US for a year to apply. Both men, however, had racked up significant criminal charges thus they could not qualify for the adjustment from refugee to legal permanent resident. [7] [1]

"When Martinez sought adjustment in 1991, he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Rhode Island and burglary in California, Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7; when Benitez sought adjustment in 1985, he had been convicted of grand theft in Florida, 337 F. 3d, at 1290. Both men were convicted of additional felonies after their adjustment applications were denied: Martinez of petty theft with a prior conviction (1996), assault with a deadly weapon (1998), and attempted oral copulation by force (1999), see Pet. for Cert. in No. 03-878, at 7-8; Benitez of two counts of armed robbery, armed burglary of a conveyance, armed burglary of a structure, aggravated battery, carrying a concealed firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and unlawful possession, sale, or delivery of a firearm with an altered serial number (1993), see 337 F. 3d, at 1290-1291." [1]

Both Martinez and Benitez had their parole revoked and faced deportation by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). While being detained by INS, Martinez and Benitez, each filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their indefinite detention. [1] [8]

On October 30, 2002, Martinez was granted petition by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under Martinez v. Smith and was to be released at the digression of INS.[ clarification needed ] Whereas Benitez was denied petition by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida under Benitez v. Wallis on July 11, 2002. [1] These contracting interpretations of Zadvydas v. Davis led to the cases being consolidated by the United States Supreme Court.

Mariel Boatlift 1980

The Mariel Boatlift, was a series of boatlifts that took place from April 15 to October 31, 1980. The boatlift was responsible for the transport of 125,000 Cubans from the port of Mariel to southern Florida. [9] Within this time frame Fidel Castro allowed any Cuban who wanted to leave and had a permit to do so through the Port of Mariel. The United States Coast Guard began to see numerous personal vessels flood out of Key West and Miami, Florida. The first flood out of the U.S. were 20–40 ft pleasure boats belonging to Cuban American's who had relatives in Cuba. [10] By the 21st, a second flood of Cuban Americans attempting to rent or buy boats came. Not long after their departure for Mariel the Coast Guard began to receive distress calls and several search and rescue mission were required. [10]

Of the 125,000 refugees 2,300 had previous criminal charges in Cuba, under U.S. law 2,746 were considered criminals. Many of the 2,746 criminals that applied for US residency under the 1984 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act [11] were declared unfit due to the alien's disciplinary record and criminal record. [9] [12]

Controversy

Much of the controversy came from the ambiguous wording in Zadvydas v. Davis . Zadvydas v. Davis ruled that admissible aliens/ aliens who had already been granted US residency facing deportation may not be detained longer than the 90-day removal period. The use of "may" and "admissible" in the passage below led to confusion for the lower courts.

Justice Anthony Kennedy in dissent in Zadvydas had objected that

The majority's unanchored interpretation ignores another indication that the Attorney General's detention discretion was not limited to this truncated period. Section 1231(a)(6) [13] permits continued detention not only of removable aliens but also of inadmissible aliens, for instance those stopped at the border before entry. Congress provides for detention of both categories within the same statutory grant of authority. Accepting the majority's interpretation, then, there are two possibilities, neither of which is sustainable. On the one hand, it may be that the majority's rule applies to both categories of aliens, in which case we are asked to assume that Congress intended to restrict the discretion it could confer upon the Attorney General so that all inadmissible aliens must be allowed into our community within six months. On the other hand, the majority's logic might be that inadmissible and removable aliens can be treated differently. Yet it is not a plausible construction of § 1231(a)(6) to imply a time limit as to one class but not to another. The text does not admit of this possibility. As a result, it is difficult to see why "[a]liens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question. [12]

Kennedy's objection—that Zadvydas might be read to overturn prior cases and Constitutionally forbid the indefinite detention of aliens seeking "initial admission to this country"—was the question presented in Clark v. Martinez.

Clark v. Martinez also poses the controversial question of where aliens physically are while their status is being determined.

One of the government's tactics has been to deny release to people who are "paroled" into the United States, meaning that they are physically allowed into the country while their status is being determined. Technically, they are not considered to be "in" the country [14]

Aftermath

Martinez was held by INS until after the decision in 2005. Benitez was paroled and released to family sponsors, two days after his case was heard by the Supreme Court, October 15, 2004.

Daniel Benitez died March 29, 2005, just months after his case was decided in January, 2005. [15] Sergio Suarez Martinez can be found as a registered sex offender, otherwise his whereabouts are unknown. [16]

Implementation

With the decision of Clark v. Martinez, Mariel Cubans who have been under long term detention are to be released from custody. [17]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mariel boatlift</span> Mass migration of Cubans to the USA in 1980

The Mariel boatlift was a mass emigration of Cubans who traveled from Cuba's Mariel Harbor to the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980. The term "Marielito" is used to refer to these refugees in both Spanish and English. While the exodus was triggered by a sharp downturn in the Cuban economy, it followed on the heels of generations of Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in the preceding decades.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wet feet, dry feet policy</span> US policy on Cuban migrants between 1995 and 2017

The wet feet, dry feet policy or wet foot, dry foot policy was the name given to a former interpretation of the 1995 revision of the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who emigrated from Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. Prior to 1995, the U.S. government allowed all Cubans who reached U.S. territorial waters to remain in the U.S. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters. For two decades thereafter, any Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations would summarily be returned to Cuba or sent to a third country, while one who made it to shore got a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status in accordance with the 1966 Act and eventually U.S. citizenship. However, the policy came with increased risk for asylum seekers entering the country. In 1994, also known as the year of the Rafter Crisis, 36,900 immigrants risked travel by sea. On January 12, 2017, Barack Obama announced the immediate end of the policy following concerns about the safety of immigrants risking their lives to cross the straits of Florida into the U.S. The end of his presidency saw an increase in foreign relations with Cuba, including bilateral agreements with the Cuban government regarding maritime and aeronautical search and rescue protocols for Cuban immigrants entering the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cuban exodus</span> Defectors from Communist Cuba

The Cuban exodus is the mass emigration of Cubans from the island of Cuba after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Throughout the exodus, millions of Cubans from diverse social positions within Cuban society emigrated within various emigration waves, due to political repression and disillusionment with life in Cuba.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security certificate</span>

In Canada, a security certificate is a legal mechanism by which the Canadian government can detain and deport permanent residents and all other non-citizens living in Canada.

An Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is an application for legal entry to the United States made by an individual who is otherwise inadmissible on one or more grounds. The application is submitted to the consular office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office or immigration court considering the immigrant visa or adjustment of status application.

<i>Garcia-Mir v. Meese</i>

Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 788 F.2d 1446, was a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the United States could indefinitely detain Cuban refugees who had arrived during the 1980 Mariel boatlift.

Adjustment of status in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States refers to the legal process of conferring permanent residency upon any alien who is a refugee, asylum seeker, nonpermanent resident, conditional entrant, parolee, and so forth.

Title 8 of the United States Code codifies statutes relating to aliens and nationality in the United States Code.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the detention and release of unaccompanied minors.

Under the public charge rule, immigrants to United States classified as Likely or Liable to become a Public Charge may be denied visas or permission to enter the country due to their disabilities or lack of economic resources. The term was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1882. The restriction has remained a major cause for denial of visas and lawful permanent residency ever since; in 1992, about half of those denied immigrant and non-immigrant visas for substantive reasons were denied due to the public charge rule. However, the administrative definition of "public charge" has been subject to major changes, notably in 1999 and 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration detention in the United States</span>

The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received, and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked into ICE custody: 242,778 of whom were detained by CBP and 153,670 by ICE's own enforcement operations. A daily average of 42,188 immigrants were held by ICE in that year. In addition, over twelve thousand immigrant children are housed by facilities under the supervision of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's program for Unaccompanied Alien Children. Prior to referral to these other agencies, the CBP holds immigrants at processing centers; between mid-May and mid-June 2019, it held between 14,000 and 18,000 immigrants.

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.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the limits of worksite enforcement by immigration agents. Specifically, the Court ruled that factory raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) were not illegal seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Expedited removal is a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States where an alien is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the country, without going through the normal removal proceedings. The legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. Its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.

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.

The Fort Chaffee crisis occurred during the Mariel boatlift in 1980 when over 19,000 Cuban refugees were detained at Fort Chaffee. They could not be released into the public because they were not United States citizens. After a promise of quick release many processing setbacks occurred and many refugees remained still detained at the center. Frustrated with the conditions at the facility and the slow processing many refugees rioted, 62 refugees were injured and 46 others were arrested. Refugees at the center would go on to refer to the riot as El Domingo. After the riots Governor Bill Clinton put heavy fortifications at the center. Clinton would lose the later Arkansas election after his opponent would use the incident against him.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peruvian Havana Embassy Crisis of 1980</span> 1980 diplomatic crisis

On April 1, 1980, six Cuban citizens made their way into the Peruvian embassy in Havana, Cuba, instigating an international crisis over the diplomatic status of around 10,000 asylum-seeking Cubans who joined them over the following days. The Peruvian ambassador, Ernesto Pinto Bazurco Rittler, spearheaded the effort to protect Cubans, most of whom were disapproved of by Fidel Castro’s regime and were seeking protection at the embassy. This episode marked the start of the Cuban refugee crisis, which was followed by a series of diplomatic initiatives between various countries in both North and South America that tried to organize the fleeing of people from the island of Cuba to the United States and elsewhere. The embassy crisis culminated with the substantial exodus of 125,266 Cuban asylum-seekers during the Mariel Boatlift.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 8 U.S.C.   § 1182.
  3. "Deportation". U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  4. Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
  5. 1 2 "Clark v. Martinez". The Oyez Project. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
  6. Rodriguez, Jose. "Clark v. Martinez: Limited Statutory Construction Required by Constitutional Avoidance Offers Fragile Protection for Inadmissible Immigrants from Indeanite Detention" (PDF). Harvard Law. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
  7. "USCIS - Green Card for a Cuban Native or Citizen". www.uscis.gov. Archived from the original on 2009-09-23.
  8. Olson, THEODORE B. "No. 03-878". Archived from the original on August 30, 2010. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  9. 1 2 Pike, John. "Mariel Boatlift". Global Security. Retrieved November 2, 2011.
  10. 1 2 Stabile, Benedict L. "Mariel Boatlift 1980". U.S. Coast Guard. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  11. "23.11 Cuban Adjustment Act Cases". Archived from the original on October 19, 2012. Retrieved November 2, 2011.
  12. 1 2 Breyer, Stephen. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 - Supreme Court 2001". Google Scholar. Retrieved November 2, 2011.
  13. 8 U.S.C.   § 1231(a)(6) .
  14. "CCR Celebrates Victory in Supreme Court Immigration Detention Case". Center for Constitutional Rights. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  15. "Mariel boatlift figure who challenged detention dies". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  16. "Sergio Suarez Martinez". Archived from the original on April 9, 2013. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  17. Yates, William R. "Implementation of Clark v. Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005)" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved November 3, 2011.