Clark v. Martinez

2005-01-12

Headline: Limits on detaining inadmissible immigrants: Court applies six-month presumption, ordering release when removal is not reasonably foreseeable and affecting long post‑removal detentions.

Holding: In these cases the Court held that inadmissible immigrants ordered removed may be detained only for the time reasonably necessary to effect removal, applying the Zadvydas six‑month presumption and requiring release when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Real World Impact:

Requires release after six months unless removal is reasonably foreseeable.
Applies the same six‑month presumption to inadmissible immigrants.
Leaves Congress able to change detention rules for security reasons.

Topics: immigration detention, removal orders, release after six months, court challenges to detention

Summary

Background

Two Cuban men who were paroled into the United States in 1980 and later convicted of crimes had their paroles revoked, were ordered removed to Cuba, and remained detained well past the statutory 90-day removal period. Each filed a federal habeas challenge arguing the government lacked authority to keep them locked up after that period. Lower courts split: the Ninth Circuit ordered release in one case while the Eleventh Circuit upheld continued detention in the other, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the question.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether its prior ruling in Zadvydas—which read the detention statute to permit only the time reasonably necessary to effect removal and adopted a six-month presumptive limit—also applies to aliens who were never admitted (inadmissible). The Court held that the same statutory language governs all categories of aliens, applied the Zadvydas construction to inadmissible aliens, and explained that the six-month presumption controls unless the Government shows a substantial likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because both men had been detained beyond six months and the Government showed no such likelihood, the Court said habeas relief should have been granted, affirmed the Ninth Circuit, reversed the Eleventh Circuit, and sent the cases back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision requires that many non‑admitted immigrants held after a final removal order be released if removal is not reasonably foreseeable after the six‑month presumptive period. The ruling leaves open the possibility that the Government can justify longer detention in particular cases and that Congress can change the law for special security concerns.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O'Connor concurred, stressing the six‑month rule is a rebuttable presumption and noting other statutes can permit longer detention for national security risks. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing Zadvydas was wrongly applied and would allow indefinite detention; he would have reached the opposite outcome.