October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1491

Can the government detain lawful permanent residents during removal proceedings?

the sides that brought the case argue Congress mandated detention for serious felons. the opposing sides claim this violates due process rights.

Official caption
Demore v. Hyung Joon Kim
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Theodore Olson argued Congress acted based on overwhelming evidence.

    He stated prompt removal is essential for border control.

    He asserted Congress has the power to mandate detention.

    Ms. Rabinovitz argued the statute violates due process rights. She questioned whether Congress authorized such broad detention. She emphasized the client is a lawful permanent resident. She noted the statute directs custody at criminal release. She argued this timing is critical to the legal question.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of federal detention powers. It pits border security needs against individual liberty. The Court must define the limits of mandatory detention.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to uphold the mandatory detention statute.

the opposing sides want the Court to strike down the detention requirement.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue Congress found prompt removal essential for border control.

the opposing sides argue the statute violates the Due Process Clause.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the statute authorize detention at criminal release or later?

Did Congress intend to cover all removal proceedings?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the balance between national security and personal freedom. It sets the standard for detaining non-citizens. It impacts how the government manages its borders.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON