Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

that outside of the national-security context, this Court has
never “authorized prolonged detention without an individ-
ualized hearing, before a neutral adjudicator, at which the 
detainee  has  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  participate.” 
Ibid. (collecting cases).  He asserts that the Government’s 
interest in denying bond hearings is minimal because such
hearings do not require release.  Id., at 26 (citing Zadvydas, 
533 U. S., at 696).  And he argues that his status as an in-
dividual with a reinstated removal order “ ‘bears no relation 
to  [his]  dangerousness,’ ”  as  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  an 
Immigration Judge authorized his release on bond.  Brief 
for  Respondent  26–27  (quoting  Zadvydas,  533  U. S.,  at 
692).  The Government responds that regulations directing 
ICE officials to conduct administrative custody reviews for
individuals in ICE detention provide adequate process, “at 
least as a general matter.”  Brief for Petitioners 18–19.  The 
Government  contends  that  these  regulations—which  gen-
erally require a custody review at the end of the 90-day re-
moval period, a second review by a panel at ICE headquar-
ters after six months of detention, and subsequent annual 
reviews—provide  constitutionally  sufficient  substantive 
and procedural protections for noncitizens whose detention 
is prolonged.  Id., at 18.  The Government also notes that 
as-applied constitutional challenges remain available to ad-
dress “exceptional” cases.  Id., at 21. 

“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view.”  Cutter v. 
Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005).  The courts below 
did not reach Arteaga-Martinez’s constitutional claims be-
cause they agreed with him that the statute required a bond 
hearing.  We leave them for the lower courts to consider in 
the first instance.  See Jennings, 583 U. S., at ___ (slip op., 
at 29).

Arteaga-Martinez  also  advances  an  alternative  theory 
that he is presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas
because, in view of the length of time that withholding-only