Criminal Law and Procedure Decisions: Zadvydas v. Davis</titl <body>  <script language="javascript1.1" src="http://images.findlaw.com/tracking/wss-lp.js"></script> <script language="javascript1.1" src="http://images.findlaw.com/tracking/hbx-0250.js"></script> <noscript> <img src="http://ehg-findlaw.hitbox.com/HG?hc=we76&cd=1&hv=6&ce=u&hb=DM531216MLSZ&n=LP&vcon=NO+JAVASCRIPT&vpc=HBX0250u" border="0" width="1" height="1"> </noscript>  <div id="main"> <div id="doc3" class="pro"> <div id="bd"> <div class="yui-g" id="header"> <div id="header_sub_center"> <h1 id="logo"><a href="http://lp.findlaw.com"><b>FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.</b></a></h1> <div id="question"> <h3><a href="http://www.findlaw.com/" class="c_4">Non-Professional? Visit our consumer site »</a></h3> <div class="c_4"><a href='http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/register?dest=http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/zadvydas.html'>Register</a> or <a href='http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/login?dest=http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/zadvydas.html'>Log-In</a><br/></div> </div>  <div id="primary_nav"> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/" class="research research_selected">Research the Law</a></li> <li><a href="http://lp.findlaw.com/law-practice-management/" class="practice">Manage Your Practice</a></li> <li><a href="http://lp.findlaw.com/law-career-and-education/" class="career">Manage Your Career</a></li> <li><a href="http://news.lp.findlaw.com/" class="newscommentary">News & Commentary</a></li> <li class="last"><a href="http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/" class="marketcenter">Market Center</a></li> </ul> </div>  </div> </div> <div class="yui-g" id="main_ctnt"> <div id="main_child"> <div id="main_ctnt_center_top" class="yui-g shareright"> <div id="search_box"> <form id="search" action="http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl" method="GET"> <input TYPE=hidden NAME="sites" value="pro"> <input id="search_txt" class="dark_g" type="text" name="entry" value="Search FindLaw" onfocus="this.value = '';"/> <a id="search_btn" href="#" onclick="document.forms.search.submit();">Search</a> </form> </div>  </div> <div id="main_ctnt_center_mid" class="yui-g">  <div class="bread_crum"> <ul id="bc_nav"> <li class="bc_link"><a href="#" class="nav_hd"><span>Research the Law</span></a> <ul class="bc_ctnt" id="bc1_box"> <li> <div class="line"></div> <div class="issues individual"> <h4>Primary Materials</h4> <ul> <li><a href="http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/">Cases & Codes</a></li> <li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html">Opinion Summaries</a></li> <li><a href="http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/">Forms & Contracts</a></li> <li><a href="http://library.findlaw.com/">Law Articles</a></li> </ul> <ul> <li><a href="http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/01topics/">Practice Areas</a></li> <li><a href="http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/11stategov/">Jurisdictions</a></li> <li><a href="http://westlegaledcenter.findlaw.com/home/homepage.jsf?sc_cid=Findlawclecntrtab">CLE</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.findlaw.com/toc.html">View all »</a></li> </ul> </div> <div class="issues individual"> <h4>Resource Centers</h4> <ul> <li><a href="http://technology.findlaw.com/">Law Technology</a></li> <li><a href="http://practice.findlaw.com/">Practice Management</a></li> <li><a href="http://corporate.findlaw.com/">Corporate Counsel</a></li> <li><a href="http://stu.findlaw.com/">Law Students</a></li> </ul> <ul> <li><a href="http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/">Market Center</a></li> <li><a href="http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/">Thomson Legal Record</a></li> <li><a href="http://careers.findlaw.com/">Legal Careers</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.lawyermarketing.com/">Lawyer Marketing</a></li> </ul> </div> </li> </ul> </li> <li class="bc_link limit"></li> </ul> </div>  <div id="main_ctnt_center_mid" class="yui-g narrow">  <div id="sub_ctnt" class="yui-g home"> <div class="yui-g home_mid_ctnt"> <div class="yui-g ad_interior_top"> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">top728();</script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">pop_under();</script></div>   <div class="yui-g intro"> <h1 class="c_1">Criminal Law Summaries</h1> <hr /> <div id="textbox"><title>Criminal Law and Procedure Decisions: Zadvydas v. Davis</titl<h5><a href="http://www.findlaw.com">FindLaw</a> > <a href="../index.html">Criminal Law Summaries</a> > Zadvydas v. Davis</h5><P align="center"><b>Aliens – Indefinite Confinement Under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6)</b></p><p><b>Case: <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html">Zadvydas v. Davis</a></b></p><p><b>Issue:</b> Whether <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1231">8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6)</a>, a provision permitting the United States Attorney General to detain a deportable alien beyond the 90-day period designated for final removal, authorizes indefinite confinement of that alien or limits such confinement to a reasonable duration.</p><b><p>Facts:</b> Under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(2), after entry of a final removal order deportable aliens must be held in custody for a period of 90 days while removal arrangements are made final with the accepting country. §1231(a)(6) provides that where removal arrangements cannot be finalized within the 90-day period, an alien ordered removed who is: (1) “inadmissible,” or (2) “removable” for violating status requirements, entry conditions, or the criminal law, or for reasons of security or foreign policy, or (3) determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the removal order, “may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” Two permanent resident aliens subject to deportation for criminal convictions were detained past the 90-day period authorized for final removal under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(2). They were detained under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). </p><p>Petitioner Kestutis Zadvydas was born in Lithuania to German parents, but later immigrated to the United States. He had a long criminal record involving drug crimes, attempted robbery, attempted burglary, and theft. Although Zadvydas was ordered deported, neither Lithuania nor Germany would admit him because Zadvydas was not a Lithuanian or German citizen. In 1995, after being held in custody for nearly a year while awaiting deportation, Zadvydas sought habeas review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In 1997, the District Court ordered Zadvydas released, determining that the Government would never effectuate his deportation, thereby rendering his detention both permanent and unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, reasoning that no constitutional concerns would be implicated as long as deportation remained a possibility, the Government continued its good faith efforts to achieve removal, and Zadvydas’ detention was subject to periodic administrative review.</p><p>Petitioner Kim Ho Ma was a permanent resident alien with Cambodian citizenship. He was convicted of manslaughter for a gang-related shooting. Because the United States and Cambodia did not have a repatriation treaty, Ma could not be deported. After being detained beyond the 90-day period provided for in §1231(a)(2), Ma filed a petition for habeas review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The District Court ruled that Ma’s continued detention was unconstitutional unless the Government could show a “realistic chance” that Ma ultimately would be deported. Because Cambodia would not accept Ma without an effective repatriation treaty in place, the District Court determined that the Government could not make this showing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision, concluding that the statute “did not authorize detention for more than a reasonable time beyond the 90-day period authorized for removal.”</p><b><p>Holding:</b> 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) limits the post-removal-period confinement of a deportable alien to a period reasonably necessary to effectuate that alien’s removal from the United States. The application of this limitation is fully reviewable by federal courts. [In order to limit the occasions when courts will need to make the “difficult judgments” better suited to the Executive, for the sake of uniform administration within the federal court system, and because the Court had “reason to believe . . . that Congress previously doubted the constitutionality of detention for more than six months,” the Court established a bright-line rule wherein a detention of more than six months beyond the 90-day statutory period will give rise to a presumption of unconstitutionality. After the six-month period has expired and the alien provides “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the Government must rebut that showing. For detention to remain reasonable as the period of confinement grows, “what counts as the ‘reasonably foreseeable future’ conversely would have to shrink.”]</p><b><p>Reasoning:</b> The Government contended that, because §1231(a)(6) does not expressly restrict the length of time during which an alien can be detained, no such limit exists. Citing the need to adhere to the principle of constitutional avoidance, however, the Court, through Justice Breyer, rejected the Government’s argument. “It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation . . . that when an Act of Congress raises a serious doubt as to its constitutionality, this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the questions may be avoided.” The statute carries with it two equally plausible interpretations; a detention thereunder could extend indefinitely or be limited to a reasonable duration. Because Fifth Amendment Due Process concerns would result from permitting aliens to be indefinitely detained without the prospect of removal, the Court determined that §1231(a)(6) limits permissible confinements to a reasonable duration. (Government detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause unless it is ordered in a criminal proceeding with “adequate procedural protections” or in certain special and narrow non-punitive situations where a special justification, “such as harm-threatening mental illness,” outweighs an individual’s constitutional interest in avoiding physical restraint.)</p><p>The Court found nothing in the history of the statute, which “clearly demonstrates a congressional intent to authorize indefinite, perhaps permanent, detention.” Contrary to the Government’s contention, the use of the term “may” [“may be detained beyond the detention period”] in §1231(a)(6) does not bestow “unlimited discretion” upon the Attorney General to effectuate an unjustified continued detention without regard to constitutional rights. Further, that similar statutes require detention of criminal aliens <U>during</U> removal proceedings and <U>during</U> the 90-day removal period likewise is not dispositive. “[T]he statute before us applies not only to terrorist and criminals, but also to ordinary visa violators.” Moreover, unlike detention during removal proceedings and the 90-day removal period, post-removal-period detention has no obvious termination point.</p><p>The Court rejected the Government’s argument that “ensuring the appearance of aliens at future immigration proceedings” and “[p]reventing danger to” the community were the goals of the statute. First, the Court determined that preventing flight was a weak justification where deportation was not realistically available. Where detention’s goal (in this case removal) is no longer attainable, detention no longer bears a reasonable relationship to the original purpose for which the individual was detained. Second, the Government’s interest in protecting the community is only legitimate in this context when applied to “specially dangerous individuals.” The provision here, however, applies “broadly to aliens ordered removed for many and various reasons including tourist visa violations.”</p><p>Relying on the Court’s holding in <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/345/206.html">Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei</a>, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), the Government argued that alien status itself permits indefinite detention. Specifically, because the alien has lost all rights to remain in the country, that alien no longer enjoys constitutional protection. Distinguishing between “an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never been entered,” the Court refused to accept the Government’s reasoning. In <U>Mezei</U>, the alien in question never technically entered the United States, so that alien did not enjoy constitutional rights, which rights would prohibit indefinite detention without proper justification. The Court also noted that the “choice . . . is not between imprisonment and the alien living at large,” but rather “between imprisonment and supervision under release conditions that may not be violated.”</p><p>Finally, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that permitting courts to disregard the wishes of the Executive Branch, by limiting the reach of §1231(a)(6), violates the separation of powers. The Court explained that “courts can take appropriate account” of Executive Branch expertise in immigration-related matters “without abdicating their legal responsibility to review the lawfulness of an alien’s continued detention.” </p><b><p>Other Opinions:</b> Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, concluding that <U>Mezei</U> governed the case. Justice Scalia reasoned that an alien ordered removed from the United States enjoys no constitutional right to a supervised release. Indeed, once an alien’s right to remain in the country has been extinguished by a final order of removal, that alien has no greater right to release in the country than an alien “at the border seeking entry.”</p><p>Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice, also dissented, arguing that §1231(a)(6) provides the Attorney General with express authority to detain removable aliens beyond the 90-day post-removal period. Criticizing the majority for misapplying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, Justice Kennedy explained that the principle only permits the Court to choose between “fairly possible” statutory constructions. Where the clear language of the statute renders a construction no longer “fairly possible,” that construction cannot be a choice. That the majority’s construction runs contrary to the clear intent of Congress is confirmed by Congress’ purposeful omission of a reasonable duration requirement in enacting §1231(a)(6). In other immigration statutes, where Congress sought to condition continued confinement upon such a requirement, it expressly provided therefor.</p><p>The statute also protects against risk to the community, a risk that may even increase when repatriation negotiations conclude. Limiting the application of §1231(a)(6) seriously undermines the objective of the statute by allowing countries with whom the United States might have sensitive relations to “force dangerous aliens upon us.” In addition, removable aliens enjoy “thorough, substantial removal safeguards,” such as appellate review of the removal order and habeas review of the Attorney General’s waiver decision. Even after they have been finally determined removable, these aliens still are entitled to be free from “arbitrary or capricious detention.” But seeking to prevent deportable aliens from fleeing and endangering the community are not arbitrary or capricious objectives. As long as they receive periodic administrative review of their detentions which will account for any decrease in the risk of danger that they might pose to the community, these aliens are afforded due process of law. </p><p>Underlying Justice Kennedy’s dissent is a concern for separation of powers. Because courts applying the majority’s six-month rule will not be able to account for foreign relations considerations properly, Justice Kennedy concluded that the Court had impermissibly authorized a judicial usurpation of executive power. The six-month period selected, moreover, “bears no particular relationship to how long it now takes to deport any group of aliens.” Finally, the bright-line rule established by the majority will provide removable aliens with incentive to obstruct the Government’s deportation attempts in an effort to extend their post-removal detention beyond the six-month period permitted.</p><b><p>Comment: </b>The Court made clear that the sixth-month presumption<b> </b>would not result in the automatic release of every alien not removed by then. “To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” If the habeas court determines that “removal is not reasonably foreseeable” the court must hold continued detention unreasonable and unauthorized by statute. The alien’s release, however, “may and should be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised release that are appropriate,” and the alien may be returned to custody upon violation of any one of these conditions.</p></div> </div>       <div id="fl_container3"> <script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x52();</script> <script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x52();</script> <script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x52();</script> <div id="fl_label">Ads by FindLaw</div> </div> <script> hide_box('fl_container3'); </script>  </div> </div> <div class="nav_right rn_inner">  <div class="sections yui-g"> <h2 class="right" style="color:#666666;">Welcome Legal Professionals</h2> <p>FindLaw provides the resources to help you practice law. Access free cases & codes, connect with your peers, and leverage FindLaw's lawyer marketing solutions.</p> <div id="lprightcollinks"> <a href="http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/">Cases & Codes</a><br /> <a href="http://lp.findlaw.com/law-practice-management/">Practice Management</a><br /> <a href="http://www.lawyermarketing.com/">Lawyer Marketing</a><br /> <a href="http://lp.findlaw.com/law-career-and-education/">Career & Education</a><br /> <a href="http://justice-email.findlaw.com/">Justice Mail</a><br /> <a href="http://newsletters.findlaw.com/">Newsletters</a></div> </div>   <div class="sections sub_block yui-g">  <div align="center"><script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">newsSky();</script></div>  </div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="main_ctnt_center_bottom" class="yui-g home"></div>  </div> </div> </div> <div id="ft"> <div id="footer_nav" class="yui-g"> <div id="footer_nav_left_ctnt" class="yui-g"> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>research the law</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/">Cases & Codes</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html">Opinion Summaries</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/">Sample Business Contracts</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/">Research an attorney or law firm</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>manage your practice</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://technology.findlaw.com/">Law Technology</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://practice.findlaw.com/">Law Practice Management</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lawyermarketing.com/">Law Firm Marketing Services</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://corporate.findlaw.com/">Corporate Counsel Center</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>manage your career</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://careers.findlaw.com/">Legal Career Job Search</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://westlegaledcenter.findlaw.com/home/homepage.jsf?sc_cid=Findlawclecntrtab">Online CLE</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://stu.findlaw.com/">Law Student Resources</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>news and commentary</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.lp.findlaw.com">Legal News Headlines</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://writ.lp.findlaw.com">Law Commentary</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.lp.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index2.html">Featured Documents</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://newsletters.findlaw.com/">Newsletters</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.findlaw.com/rss/">RSS Feeds</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>Get Legal Forms</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://forms.findlaw.com">Legal Forms for Your Practice</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="yui-g footer_line"> <div class="first footer_title"> <h4>about us</h4> </div> <div class="footer_list"> <ul> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://company.findlaw.com/company_info.html">Company History</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://company.findlaw.com/media_relations.html">Media Relations</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://company.findlaw.com/contacts.html">Contact Us</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://company.findlaw.com/adkit/index.html">Advertising</a> /</li> <li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://company.findlaw.com/jobs/">Jobs</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div id="copy_awards" class="yui-g"> <hr /> <div id="copyright">Copyright © 2008 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved. </div> <div id="ft_awards"> <span>Webby Awards</span> <span>Time 50 coolest websites</span> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>