Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

4 

JOHNSON v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

and detai[n an alien] pending a decision on whether the al-
ien is to be removed,” or “may release the alien on . . . bond
. . . or . . . conditional parole.”  Why did this statute not give
the Court the textual leeway needed to permit a bail hear-
ing (given the constitutional problem posed by potentially 
indefinite  detention)?  Here  is  the  Court’s  answer  to  that 
question in its entirety: 

“The Court of Appeals ordered the Government to pro-
vide procedural protections that go well beyond the in-
itial bond hearing established by existing regulations—
namely,  periodic  bond  hearings  every  six  months  in 
which  the  Attorney  General  must  prove  by  clear  and 
convincing  evidence  that  the  alien’s  continued  deten-
tion  is  necessary.  Nothing  in  §1226(a)’s  text—which
says only that the Attorney General ‘may release’ the 
alien ‘on . . . bond’—even remotely supports the impo-
sition  of  either  of  those  requirements.    Nor  does 
§1226(a)’s  text  even  hint  that  the  length  of  detention
prior to a bond hearing must specifically be considered
in determining whether the alien should be released.” 
Jennings, 583 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23) (em-
phasis added). 

The court below did not order periodic bond hearings, but 
it did require the Government to satisfy a “clear and con-
vincing evidence” standard.  Ante, at 3.  I agree that Jen-
nings  forecloses  this  latter  requirement.    Otherwise,  I 
would find the lower courts’ bail hearing requirements rea-
sonable implementations of the Zadvydas standard, which 
is applicable here.

Since  the  Court  remands  this  case  for  further  proceed-
ings, I would add that, in my view, Zadvydas applies (the
Court does not hold to the contrary), and the parties are free
to  argue  about  the  proper  way  to  implement  Zadvydas’ 
standard in this context, and, if necessary, to consider the 
underlying  constitutional  question,  a  matter  that  this
Court has not decided.