Plain-English summary
Court says statute does not require government to prove dangerousness or flight risk at six‑month bond hearing
In Johnson v. Arteaga‑Martinez (No. 19‑896), the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) does not require the government to provide noncitizens detained after a final removal order with bond hearings in which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or danger. The Court reversed the Third Circuit and remanded the case.
Why this matters
The ruling determines the procedural rights of noncitizens who remain detained after a final order of removal. It limits court-mandated bond hearings and the Government’s evidentiary burden at those hearings, affecting how long and under what process people may be held while removal is awaited or practically impossible.
Who may feel it
- Noncitizens subject to final orders of removal who are detained under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration judges and federal courts reviewing detention
- Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations
Key questions
- Does 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) require a bond hearing after six months of post‑removal detention?
- If a hearing is required, must the Government bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community?