This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case Kestutis Zadvydas v. Lynn Underdown and Immigration and Naturalization Service concerns the Attorney General’s authority to detain an alien.
The detention is subject to periodic, automatic review each year, and the alien may request a review in intervening periods.
The parties argue whether judicial review is available and whether the detention raises constitutional due‑process concerns.
Background and question before the Court
The Attorney General’s detention is reasonably related to the goal of protecting the public from dangerous criminal aliens and is subject to periodic, automatic review each year.
There is habeas‑corpus review available in this case.
Chief Justice asked, “Which circuit court?”
A Justice asked, “It is or is not one of the elements?”
A Justice asked whether Carlson would allow judicial review of the periodic determinations.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Kestutis Zadvydas
According to Mr. Kneedler, petitioner argues that judicial review should follow the Carlson standard, focusing on whether the Attorney General exercised power arbitrarily and whether a residual liberty interest exists.
According to Mr. Stansell, petitioner contends that the administrative process should consider the foreseeability of deportation.
Respondent – Lynn Underdown and Immigration and Naturalization Service
According to Jay W. Stansell, respondent argues that the administrative process is fundamentally flawed because it takes no consideration that deportation is not foreseeable.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice asked, “Which circuit court?”
A Justice asked, “It is or is not one of the elements?”
A Justice asked whether Carlson would allow judicial review of the periodic determinations.
According to Mr. Kneedler, mr. Kneedler responded that judicial review should follow the Carlson line, focusing on arbitrary exercise of power and a possible residual liberty interest.
Mr. Stansell argued that the administrative process fails to consider deportation foreseeability.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses the scope of the Attorney General’s detention authority and the availability of judicial review, which directly affect the due‑process rights of detained aliens.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d915eef9b72a875a097f-r1-d256a2c260cf84b2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.