# Supreme Court: No Automatic Bond Hearing After 6 Months of Immigration Detention (Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez)

> In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (2022), the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) does not require the government to give detained noncitizens a bond hearing after six months. What it means for people in prolonged immigration detention.

- Source: https://carlosmaury.law/news/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez-bond-hearing-detention
- Author: Carlos Maury Law
- Published: 2022-06-13
- Topics: Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, bond hearing immigration detention, 8 USC 1231(a)(6), prolonged detention noncitizen, Zadvydas v. Davis

In **Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez** (No. 19-896, decided June 13, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held that **8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)** does **not** require the government to give detained noncitizens a bond hearing after six months of detention — even though a bond hearing would put the burden on the government to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The Court reversed the Third Circuit, which had required exactly that.

This is general information about a court decision, not legal advice. If you or a family member is in prolonged immigration detention, talk with an immigration attorney about your specific case. You can **[read the full opinion (PDF)](https://carlosmaury.law/resources/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez.pdf)**.

## How the case arose

Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, a citizen of Mexico, had entered the United States without inspection several times over the years and was removed each time. After reentering in 2012, he lived and worked in the U.S. for nearly six years. In May 2018, ICE arrested him and reinstated his earlier removal order.

Arteaga-Martinez applied for **withholding of removal** and protection under the Convention Against Torture, fearing persecution if returned to Mexico. An asylum officer found his fear credible, and his case was referred to an immigration judge for "withholding-only" proceedings. While that case was pending, the government continued to detain him under § 1231(a)(6) — without a bond hearing.

After four months without a hearing, Arteaga-Martinez filed a habeas petition in federal district court. By then, the Third Circuit had already held, in a separate case, that anyone facing prolonged detention under § 1231(a)(6) is entitled by statute to a bond hearing after six months, with the government bearing the burden of proving flight risk or danger. The government conceded Arteaga-Martinez qualified under that rule, and the district court ordered a bond hearing. The Third Circuit summarily affirmed. (At the bond hearing that followed, an immigration judge weighed his flight risk and dangerousness and released him on bond while his withholding case remained pending.)

## What the Supreme Court decided

Writing for the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that the text of § 1231(a)(6) does not support the bond-hearing requirement the lower courts had imposed. The statute says only that a noncitizen ordered removed "may be detained" beyond the 90-day removal period and, if released, "shall be subject to" certain terms of supervision. It says **nothing** about bond hearings before immigration judges, who bears the burden of proof, or any comparable procedure.

The Court applied the same reasoning it had used a few years earlier in a related case, *Jennings v. Rodriguez* (2018), which rejected a similar judge-made bond-hearing requirement for a different detention statute. Because § 1231(a)(6)'s text is not ambiguous on this point, the Court held there was no basis for reading in procedures the statute never mentions — not even oblique references to "terms of supervision" or the statute's general concern with flight risk and dangerousness.

The Court also rejected the argument that its earlier decision in *Zadvydas v. Davis* (2001) — which held that § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize *indefinite* detention and limits detention to a period reasonably necessary to carry out removal — implicitly required the specific bond-hearing procedures the Third Circuit had imposed. *Zadvydas* limited how long the government can detain someone; it did not create a right to a periodic bond hearing.

## What the Court left open

Importantly, the Court's ruling was narrow. It held only that the **statute's text** does not require bond hearings — it did not decide whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing could still violate the **Constitution's due process guarantees** in a given case. The lower courts had never reached Arteaga-Martinez's constitutional arguments (because they had ruled for him on statutory grounds), so the Supreme Court sent the case back for the lower courts to consider those arguments "in the first instance." The Court also left open Arteaga-Martinez's separate argument that, under *Zadvydas*, he might be entitled to release outright once his removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable.

In other words: this decision closes the door on a *specific* statutory bond-hearing rule, but it does not resolve whether the Constitution independently requires some process for people held for months or years while their immigration cases proceed.

## Why this matters for people in detention

For noncitizens in prolonged ICE detention — including many with pending asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture claims — this decision means there is **no automatic statutory right** to a bond hearing after six months. Release from detention while a case is pending is not guaranteed by the statute; it remains, in the government's own words, a matter of agency discretion, subject to the government's own custody-review regulations.

That makes it especially important for a detained person to raise **every available argument** — statutory, regulatory, and constitutional — as early as possible, and to build the strongest possible record on flight risk and dangerousness for any custody review the government does conduct. Because the constitutional question remains open, an individualized due-process argument may still be available depending on the length and circumstances of detention.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### Does Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez mean detained immigrants never get a bond hearing?

Not exactly. The Court held that the *statute* (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)) does not *require* a bond hearing after six months. The government retains discretion to grant custody reviews, and the Court left open whether the Constitution's due process protections might require a hearing in some circumstances — that question was sent back to the lower courts.

### What is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)?

It is the part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that governs detention after a noncitizen has a final order of removal. After an initial 90-day removal period, it allows the government to continue detaining certain categories of people, including those found to be a flight risk or danger to the community.

### How is this different from Zadvydas v. Davis?

*Zadvydas* (2001) held that § 1231(a)(6) does not allow *indefinite* detention and limits detention to the time reasonably necessary to carry out removal. *Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez* addressed a different question — whether the statute requires a periodic bond hearing — and held that it does not. *Zadvydas* was not overruled.

### I've been in immigration detention for months without a hearing. What should I do?

Speak with an immigration attorney about the specific facts of your case, including any custody reviews you've had and whether a due-process argument may apply. Carlos Maury Law is a national firm of former U.S. Immigration Judges and can be reached at **(213) 769-0050**.

---
*General legal information from Carlos Maury Law — not legal advice. https://carlosmaury.law/news/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez-bond-hearing-detention*