Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

JOHNSON v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

Opinion of the Court 

statutory provisio[n] is clear” and that it did not support a 
periodic bond hearing requirement.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 
23).

The Jennings Court also rejected the lower court’s appli-
cation of the canon of constitutional avoidance.  Earlier in 
its opinion, the Court explained that “[t]he canon of consti-
tutional avoidance ‘comes into play only when, after the ap-
plication of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found 
to be susceptible of more than one construction.’ ”  Id., at ___ 
(slip op., at 12) (quoting Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 
385 (2005)).  “In the absence of more than one plausible con-
struction, the canon simply has no application. ”  Jennings, 
583 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Applying  this  reasoning  to  §1226(a),  the  Court 
concluded that the canon was inapposite because “[n]othing
in §1226(a)’s text . . . even remotely supports the imposition 
of either of th[e] requirements” the Ninth Circuit had im-
posed.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 23). 

B 
The  question  presented  is  whether  §1231(a)(6)  requires
bond hearings before immigration judges after six months
of detention in which the Government bears the burden of 
proving by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen 
poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.  Section 
1231(a)(6) provides that certain noncitizens who have been
ordered removed “may be detained beyond the removal pe-
riod and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of 
supervision.”  This  text,  which  does  not  address  or  “even 
hin[t]” at the requirements imposed below, directs that we
answer this question in the negative.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 
14).

The Jennings Court emphasized that the canon of consti-
tutional  avoidance  is  only  applicable  where  a  statute  has
“more than one plausible construction.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., 
at 12).  Here, there is no plausible construction of the text