Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

that alien’s removal from the United States.”  533 U. S., at 689.  The 
bond hearing requirements articulated by the Third Circuit, however,
reach  substantially  beyond  the  limitation  on  detention  authority 
Zadvydas recognized.  Zadvydas does not require, and Jennings v. Ro-
driguez, 583 U. S. ___, does not permit, the Third Circuit’s application
of the canon of constitutional avoidance.  Pp. 6–8.

(c) Constitutional  challenges 

to  prolonged  detention  under 
§1231(a)(6)  were  not  addressed  below,  in  part  because  those  courts 
read §1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing.  Arteaga-Martinez’s alter-
native  theory  that  he  is  presumptively  entitled  to  release  under 
Zadvydas also was not addressed below.  The Court leaves these argu-
ments for the lower courts to consider in the first instance.  See Cutter 
v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.  Pp. 8–10. 

Reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, 
JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, 
J., joined as to Part I.  BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part.