Facts
- Kestutis Zadvydas, a lawful permanent resident with criminal convictions, was ordered removed and detained during the statutory 90-day removal period.
- Multiple countries refused to accept Zadvydas, making removal practically unattainable; he remained detained beyond the 90-day period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
- In a consolidated companion case, Kim Ho Ma, a lawful permanent resident born in Cambodia with an aggravated felony conviction, was also ordered removed and detained beyond the 90-day period.
- Cambodia lacked a repatriation arrangement with the United States, and Ma’s removal was not realistically foreseeable.
- Zadvydas obtained habeas relief in district court; the Fifth Circuit reversed, allowing continued detention subject to administrative review.
- Ma obtained habeas relief in district court; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, limiting post-removal detention to a reasonable time.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address (1) habeas availability under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and (2) the scope and constitutional limits of detention under § 1231(a)(6).
Issues
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2241 permits habeas review of statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period immigration detention.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorizes detention beyond the 90-day removal period for an indefinite duration when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Decision
- The Court held that § 2241 habeas jurisdiction remains available to challenge continued post-removal custody on statutory and constitutional grounds.
- The Court construed § 1231(a)(6) to contain an implicit temporal limitation: detention is authorized only for a period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal.
- The Court rejected an interpretation permitting indefinite detention, citing serious due process concerns for noncitizens physically present in the United States.
- The Court adopted a presumptive benchmark of about six months: after that time, if the detainee shows good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must produce evidence to rebut the showing.
- The Court remanded for application of the statutory standard as construed.
Legal Principles
- Federal courts may use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review post-removal-period detention despite immigration-law amendments limiting other forms of review.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), post-removal detention must be limited to a reasonable period necessary to effectuate removal; detention is not authorized once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable.
- The Due Process Clause protects all persons within the United States, including noncitizens, from indefinite physical confinement without sufficient justification.
- A six-month period after the start of post-removal detention is a rebuttable presumption for reasonableness; it does not mandate release at six months but triggers a burden-shifting inquiry on the likelihood of removal.
Conclusion
The Court preserved habeas review for continued immigration custody and interpreted § 1231(a)(6) to forbid indefinite post-removal detention, allowing confinement only for a reasonable time to secure removal and requiring release (typically under supervision) when removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.