(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET AL. v. GUZMAN CHAVEZ ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–897. Argued January 11, 2021—Decided June 29, 2021 Federal immigration law establishes procedures for removing aliens liv- ing unlawfully in the United States as well as for determining whether such persons are detained during removal proceedings. The Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS) may arrest and detain an alien “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1226(a). An alien detained under §1226(a) may generally apply for release on bond or conditional parole. §1226(a)(2). If an alien is ordered removed and the order becomes “ad- ministratively final,” detention becomes mandatory. §§1231(a)(1)(A)– (B), (a)(2). If an alien removed under this process reenters the country without authorization, that person faces reinstatement of “the prior order of removal from its original date.” §1231(a)(5). That order “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed,” and the alien “shall be re- moved under the prior order at any time after reentry.” Ibid. Respondents are aliens who were removed from the United States and later reentered without authorization. When DHS reinstated their prior removal orders, each respondent sought withholding-only relief to prevent DHS from executing those orders based on fear of re- turning to their home country as designated in the removal orders. While respondents’ withholding-only proceedings were pending, DHS detained respondents, and respondents sought release on bond, which was initially denied. The Government opposed their release, main- taining that because respondents were detained under §1231, not §1226, they were not entitled to bond hearings. Respondents filed ha- beas proceedings in District Court, seeking a declaration that §1226 2 JOHNSON v. GUZMAN CHAVEZ Syllabus governs their detention, as well as an injunction ordering the Govern- ment to grant them individualized bond hearings consistent with §1226. The District Court entered summary judgment for respond- ents, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Held: Section §1231, not §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal. Pp. 8–22. (a) Section 1231 authorizes detention “when an alien is ordered re- moved” and enters the “removal period,” which begins, as relevant here, on “[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively fi- nal.” It is undisputed that each respondent was previously “ordered removed” pursuant to a valid order of removal and that those orders were “reinstated from [their] original date[s]” under §1231(a)(5). Those reinstated removal orders were …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals