Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U. S. 
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET 
AL. v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 19–896.  Argued January 11, 2022—Decided June 13, 2022 

Respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez is a citizen of Mexico who was re-
moved  in  July  2012  and  reentered  the  United  States  in  September
2012.    U.  S.  Immigration  and  Customs  Enforcement  (ICE)  issued  a 
warrant for Arteaga-Martinez’s arrest in 2018.  ICE reinstated Arte-
aga-Martinez’s earlier removal order and detained him pursuant to its
authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.  See 8 U. S. C. 
§1231(a).  Arteaga-Martinez applied for withholding of removal under
§1231(b)(3), as well as relief under regulations implementing the Con-
vention Against Torture, based on his fear that he would be persecuted
or tortured if he returned to Mexico.  An asylum officer determined he 
had  established  a  reasonable  fear  of  persecution  or  torture,  and  the 
Department of Homeland Security referred him for withholding-only 
proceedings before an immigration judge. 

After being detained for four months, Arteaga-Martinez filed a peti-
tion for a writ of habeas corpus in District Court challenging, on both
statutory and constitutional grounds, his continued detention without 
a  bond  hearing.    The  Government  conceded  that  Arteaga-Martinez 
would be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention based 
on circuit precedent holding that a noncitizen facing prolonged deten-
tion under §1231(a)(6) is entitled by statute to a bond hearing before 
an  immigration  judge  and  must  be  released  unless  the  Government 
establishes,  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence,  that  the  noncitizen 
poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community.  The District Court 
granted relief on Arteaga-Martinez’s statutory claim and ordered the 
Government to provide Arteaga-Martinez a bond hearing.  The Third 
Circuit  summarily  affirmed.    At  the  bond  hearing,  the  Immigration