Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

however,  the  Government  continued  to  detain  Arteaga-
Martinez pursuant to §1231(a)(6).1 

In September 2018, after he had been detained for four
months  without  a  hearing,  Arteaga-Martinez  filed  a  peti-
tion for a writ of habeas corpus in the U. S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  His petition chal-
lenged his continued detention without a bond hearing on
both statutory and constitutional grounds.  Shortly there-
after,  in  a  separate  case,  the  Third  Circuit  held  that  a 
noncitizen facing prolonged detention under §1231(a)(6) is
entitled by statute to a bond hearing before an immigration 
judge and must be released from detention unless the Gov-
ernment establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the noncitizen poses a risk of flight or a danger to the com-
munity.  See  Guerrero-Sanchez  v.  Warden  York  County 
Prison, 905 F. 3d 208, 224, and n. 12 (2018).

The Government conceded that under Guerrero-Sanchez, 
Arteaga-Martinez would be entitled to a bond hearing pur-
suant to §1231(a)(6) as of November 4, 2018, six months af-
ter the start of his detention.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. 
Once  Arteaga-Martinez’s  time  in  detention  had  reached 
nearly six months, a Magistrate Judge recommended that
the District Court grant a writ of habeas corpus on Arteaga-
Martinez’s  statutory  claim  and  order  the  Government  to 
provide him an individualized bond hearing before an im-
migration judge.  Id., at 4a–5a.  The District Court adopted 
the report and recommendation and ordered a bond hear-
ing.  Id., at 3a. 

The Government appealed.  The Court of Appeals sum-
marily  affirmed,  citing  its  earlier  decision  in  Guerrero-
Sanchez.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a–2a.  Arteaga-Mar-
tinez  received  a  bond  hearing  at  which  an  Immigration 
—————— 

1 Arteaga-Martinez represents, and the Government does not dispute,
that the Government conducted an administrative review of his danger-
ousness and flight risk in August 2018 and denied him release without 
interviewing him or providing a hearing.  See 8 CFR §241.4(h)(1) (2021).