Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

JOHNSON v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

Opinion of the Court 

Judge, considering Arteaga-Martinez’s flight risk and dan-
gerousness, authorized his release on bond.  Arteaga-Mar-
tinez posted bond and was released pending a final deter-
mination  on  his  application  for  withholding  of  removal,
which, as of today, the Immigration Judge has yet to make. 
Pet. for Cert. 6; Brief for Respondent 10–11.

This Court granted certiorari.  594 U. S. ___ (2021).2 

II 
A 
The  INA  establishes  procedures  for  the  Government  to
use  when  removing  certain  noncitizens  from  the  United
States and, in some cases, detaining them.  The section at 
issue  here,  8  U. S. C.  §1231(a),  governs  the  detention,  re-
lease, and removal of individuals “ordered removed.”  This 
Court  has  held  that  §1231(a)  applies  to  individuals  with
pending  withholding-only  proceedings. 
See  Guzman 
Chavez, 594 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 7–8). 

After  the  entry  of  a  final  order  of  removal  against  a 
noncitizen,  the  Government  generally  must  secure  the
noncitizen’s  removal  during  a  90-day  “ ‘removal  period.’ ”  
§1231(a)(1)(A).  The statute provides that the Government 
“shall” detain noncitizens during the statutory removal pe-
riod.  §1231(a)(2).  After  the  removal  period  expires,  the
Government  “may”  detain  only  four  categories  of  people: 
(1) those  who  are  “inadmissible”  on  certain  specified
grounds; (2) those who are “removable” on certain specified 
grounds; (3) those it determines “to be a risk to the commu-
nity”; and (4) those it determines to be “unlikely to comply
with  the  order  of  removal.”  §1231(a)(6).  Individuals  re-
leased after the removal period remain subject to terms of 
supervision.  Ibid. 

Section 1231(a)(6) does not expressly specify how long de-
tention  past  the  90-day  removal  period  may  continue  for 
—————— 

2 The Court also granted certiorari in a companion case presenting the

same question.  See Garland v. Gonzalez, 594 U. S. ___ (2021).