Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

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 THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins as

to Part I, concurring. 

I join the Court’s opinion because it correctly decides that
8  U. S. C.  §1231(a)(6)  does  not  require  periodic,  6-month
bond hearings.  I write separately to make three points. 

I 

First,  we  lack  jurisdiction  to  hear  this  case.  Under  8 
U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), a federal court has jurisdiction to re-
view “questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action
taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien . . . only” in
two circumstances: (1) when the court reviews a “final or-
der” of removal, or (2) when §1252 otherwise grants juris-
diction.  See, e.g., Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S. ___, 
___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring 
in  judgment)  (slip  op.,  at  1);  Jennings  v.  Rodriguez,  583 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (same) (slip op., at 3–4).  This ju-
risdictional zipper clause “cover[s] all claims related to re-
moval proceedings,” including detention-related “withhold-
ing-of-removal claims.”  Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 
Jennings, 583 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–7). 

Because Arteaga-Martinez does not seek review of a final