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 Supreme Court held that § 1231, not § 1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning they are not entitled to bond hearings while pursuing withholding of removal.
Background and question before the Court
The case was argued on January 11, 2021 and decided on June 29, 2021.
What each side argues
Government
The Government opposed release, maintaining that because respondents were detained under § 1231, not § 1226, they were not entitled to bond hearings.
Respondents
Respondents contended that § 1231 ceases to apply when the alien pursues withholding‑only relief.
Petitioners’ Counsel (Vivek Suri)
According to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), according to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), petitioners argued that respondents are detained under § 1231, not § 1226, because the text of § 1231 repeatedly refers to an order of removal.
According to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), according to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), they noted that the supervised release conditions in § 1231(a)(3) require periodic appearances before an immigration officer and compliance with medical examinations and conduct restrictions.
According to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), according to Vivek Suri (Petitioners' counsel), they argued that the 90‑day removal period in § 1231(a)(1)(A) should not preclude detention when withholding‑only proceedings last longer.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Gorsuch asked about the possibility of judicial review of the withholding‑only proceedings under § 1252.
Justice Barrett asked whether post‑order custody review regulations automatically apply after the 90‑day removal period.
According to Justice Alito, Justice Alito questioned how the argument depended on statistics about the feasibility of removal to a third country.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the Government’s reading raised due‑process concerns.
What the Court decided
The majority held that § 1231, not § 1226, governs respondents’ detention and that they are not entitled to bond hearings while seeking withholding of removal.
Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that § 1231 should not be read to deny bond hearings to aliens seeking withholding‑only relief and that § 1226 should apply instead.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that aliens in withholding‑only proceedings are not entitled to bond hearings, shaping how immigration detention is applied during such proceedings.
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.
- 5f5b4b9e3befb6ed8c4d-r1-f19b7e17b04e7cde.pdforal argument transcript
- 71d8e3fc49f468bb4869-r1-27dd16f9c7089148.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.