Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

those who fall within the four designated statutory catego-
ries.  In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678 (2001), the Court 
observed that the statute’s use of the term “may” introduces
some  ambiguity  and  “does  not  necessarily  suggest  unlim-
ited discretion.”  Id., at 697.  The Court explained that “[a] 
statute  permitting  indefinite  detention  of  an  alien  would 
raise a serious constitutional problem,” noting that it had 
upheld  noncriminal  detention  as  consistent  with  the  Due 
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment only under certain
narrow circumstances.  Id., at 690.  Accordingly, the Court 
applied  the  canon  of  constitutional  avoidance  and  deter-
mined  that  “read  in  light  of  the  Constitution’s  demands,” 
§1231(a)(6)  “does  not  permit  indefinite  detention”  but  in-
stead “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a
period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s re-
moval from the United States.”  Id., at 689. 

Subsequently,  in  Jennings  v.  Rodriguez,  583  U. S.  ___ 
(2018), this Court considered the text of other provisions of 
the INA that authorize detention.  One such provision was
§1226(a),  which  governs  the  detention  of  certain  nonciti-
zens present in the country who were inadmissible at the 
time of entry or who have been convicted of certain criminal 
offenses since they were admitted.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 
4).  Section  1226(a)  provides  that  the  attorney  general
“may” detain these noncitizens pending their removal pro-
ceedings and “may release” such individuals on “bond . . . or 
conditional  parole.”    8  U. S. C.  §§1226(a)(1),  (2).    Nonciti-
zens  detained  under  §1226(a)  receive  bond  hearings  after 
the  Government  initially  detains  them.  See  8  CFR 
§§236.1(d)(1),  1236.1(d)(1)  (2021).    Relying  on  Zadvydas, 
the Ninth Circuit had interpreted §1226(a) to require addi-
tional,  periodic  bond  hearings  every  six  months,  with  the
burden on the Government to prove by clear and convincing
evidence  that  further  detention  was  justified.    Jennings, 
583 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23).  The Court in Jen-
nings disagreed.  It held that “the meaning of the relevant