Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

1 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–896 
_________________ 

TAE D. JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U. S. 
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCE-
MENT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ANTONIO 
ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[June 13, 2022] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in 

part. 

The Government can normally detain persons unlawfully 
present in, and ordered removed from, the United States for
a  90-day  statutory  “removal  period.”    8  U. S. C.  §1231(a). 
However,  §1231(a)(6)  provides  that  the  Attorney  General
may sometimes hold such a person in custody for a longer 
period.  It says: 

“An alien ordered removed [1] who is inadmissible [2]
[or]  removable  [as  a  result  of  violations  of  status  re-
quirements  or  entry  conditions,  certain  violations  of
criminal law, or reasons of security or foreign policy] or
[3] who has been determined by the Attorney General
to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with
the order of removal, may be detained beyond the re-
moval period . . . .” 

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 689 (2001), “we read
an implicit limitation into” this provision.  Because a “stat-
ute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise 
a serious constitutional problem,” we held that the “statute, 
read in light of the Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s