Opinion ID: 76255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zadvydas

Text: 16 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court expressly addressed whether the government's authority under § 1231(a)(6) to detain two legal permanent residents beyond the 90-day removal period allowed the government to detain them indefinitely. The two legal permanent residents were ordered removed based on criminal convictions. The government, however, could not effectuate their removal because no country would accept them. 17 Specifically, Kestutis Zadvydas was a legal permanent resident alien of Lithuanian decent, who was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany in 1948. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 684, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Zadvydas had a long criminal history and also a long history of flight, both in his criminal proceedings and his deportation proceedings. Id. In 1992, Zadvydas was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment in state prison. Id. After only two years' imprisonment, he was released into INS custody and ordered deported to Germany. Id. 18 Germany, however, refused to accept Zadvydas because he was not a German citizen. Id. Next, the INS attempted to deport Zadvydas to Lithuania. Id. Lithuania refused to accept Zadvydas because he was not a citizen or a permanent resident of Lithuania. Id. The INS also tried unsuccessfully to deport Zadvydas to the Dominican Republic (Zadvydas's wife's country). Id. 14 19 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court also considered the case of Kim Ho Ma. Id. at 685, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Ma was born in Cambodia, but fled to the United States at an early age. Id. In 1995, Ma was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 38 months' imprisonment. Id. After two years' imprisonment, he was released into INS custody and ordered removed. Id. The United States, however, has no repatriation treaty with Cambodia. Id. at 686, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Having no place to send Ma, the INS kept him in custody because it was unable to conclude that Mr. Ma would remain non-violent and not violate the conditions of release. Id. at 685-86, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 20 In evaluating indefinite detention in Zadvydas, the Supreme Court considered whether indefinite detention of resident aliens, if authorized by § 1231(a)(6) as the government contended, would present constitutional problems. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the two resident alien petitioners in Zadvydas enjoyed certain constitutional privileges associated with individuals who have gained entry into the United States. Id. at 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491. 21 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court also explained that Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953), permits the indefinite detention of unadmitted aliens whom the government is unable to return anywhere else, but noted that Mezei differs from the present cases [in Zadvydas ] in a critical respect. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The critical difference is that the alien in Mezei was treated, for constitutional purposes, as if stopped at the border. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (internal citations omitted). According to the Supreme Court in Zadvydas, that made all the difference in its earlier decision that Mezei's indefinite detention did not violate the Constitution. Id. 22 In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court further stressed that [t]he distinction between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered runs throughout immigration law. 533 U.S. at 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Supreme Court also emphasized that [i]t is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders. Id. (citations omitted). But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all `persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Id. (citations omitted). 23 After an extended discussion of the serious constitutional problems of permitting the indefinite detention of legal permanent residents as opposed to unadmitted aliens, the Supreme Court in Zadvydas saved § 1231(a)(6) from unconstitutionality in the context of a resident alien by limiting the post-removal-period detention to a length of time reasonably necessary to bring about the actual removal of the resident alien. Id. at 694-99, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Supreme Court then recognized six months as a presumptively reasonable time of post-removal-period detention for resident aliens. Id. at 699-702, 121 S.Ct. 2491.