Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

JOHNSON v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

Opinion of the Court 

hearings for these individuals, it requires such hearings for
those  in  Arteaga-Martinez’s  situation  as  well.  Federal 
agencies, however, “are free to grant additional procedural 
rights in the exercise of their discretion.”  Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524 (1978).  “[R]eviewing courts,” on the
other  hand,  “are  generally  not  free  to  impose  them  if  the 
agencies have not chosen to grant them.”  Ibid.  The parties
do not dispute that the Government possesses discretion to
provide bond hearings under §1231(a)(6), see Brief for Peti-
tioners 15, but this Court cannot say, consistent with Jen-
nings, that the statutory text requires them. 

Finally, Arteaga-Martinez argues that Zadvydas, which 
identified ambiguity in §1231(a)(6)’s permissive language, 
supports a view that §1231(a)(6) implicitly incorporates the 
specific  bond  hearing  requirements  and  procedures  enu-
merated  by  the  Court  of  Appeals.    In  Jennings,  however, 
this Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for going significantly 
further than Zadvydas.  583 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15). 
Jennings did not overrule or abrogate Zadvydas.  But the 
detailed procedural requirements imposed by the Court of
Appeals below reach substantially beyond the limitation on 
detention  authority  recognized  in  Zadvydas.    Zadvydas 
does not require, and Jennings does not permit, the Third
Circuit’s  application  of  the  canon  of  constitutional  avoid-
ance.3 

C 

Separately from his statutory claims, Arteaga-Martinez 
contends that reading §1231(a)(6) not to require bond hear-
ings when detention becomes prolonged “raises serious due
process concerns.”  Brief for Respondent 24.  He points out 

—————— 

3 Because the text of 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6) does not require the relief
ordered  below,  the  Court  does  not  address  the  parties’  disagreements 
over whether that relief contravened §1231(h) or impermissibly reallo-
cated executive authority.