October Term 2021 · Docket 19-896

Can the government detain asylum seekers indefinitely without a bond hearing?

The dispute centers on whether immigration officials must hold bond hearings for non-citizens detained beyond six months.

Official caption
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

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

    The government attorney argued the statute allows detention beyond the removal period.

    The detainee attorney argued a prior ruling requires release after six months if removal is unlikely.

    The detainee attorney stated the prior ruling interpreted the exact same statutory provision.

    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 involves a non-citizen detained while seeking asylum. The government claims the statute allows indefinite detention. The detainee argues a prior ruling requires release if removal seems unlikely.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 11, 2022.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants to keep the non-citizen detained without a bond hearing.

The non-citizen wants a bond hearing and potential release from custody.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statute permits detention beyond the removal period without specific limits.

The non-citizen argues a prior ruling requires release if removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if the individual applied for asylum.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the hearings test the basis for discretion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines if the government can hold non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review. It affects the liberty of people seeking protection from persecution. It defines the limits of executive power over immigration detention.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON