Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Section  241(a)  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act
(INA), codified at 8 U. S. C. §1231(a), authorizes the deten-
tion of noncitizens who have been ordered removed from the 
United  States.    See  110  Stat.  3009–598.    In  particular, 
§1231(a)(6) provides that after a 90-day “removal period,” a
noncitizen  “may  be  detained”  or  may  be  released  under 
terms  of  supervision.    This  Court  recently  held  that
§1231(a) applies to individuals who are removed and who
then reenter without authorization and apply for withhold-
ing of removal based on a fear that they will be persecuted 
or  tortured  if  returned  to  their  countries  of  origin.  See 
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip 
op.,  at  1).  The  issue  in  this  case  is  whether  the  text  of 
§1231(a)(6)  requires  the  Government  to  offer  detained 
noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention in
which the Government bears the burden of proving by clear 
and convincing evidence that a noncitizen poses a flight risk 
or a danger to the community.  It does not.