News & Insights

Facts:

• Parties Involved:
  • Kestutis Zadvydas: A lawful permanent resident of the U.S. with a criminal record, ordered deported. Germany and Lithuania refused to accept him due to his lack of citizenship.
  • Kim Ho Ma: A lawful permanent resident born in Cambodia, also ordered deported after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Cambodia had no treaty with the U.S. for repatriation.
• Context: Both individuals were detained beyond the standard 90-day removal period because their deportation could not be accomplished. They filed legal challenges, arguing that indefinite detention violated their constitutional rights.

Analysis:

• Legal Question: Can the government detain a non-citizen beyond a “reasonable period” if there is no foreseeable prospect of their removal from the U.S.?
• Supreme Court’s Reasoning:
  • Due Process Violation: The Court emphasized that indefinite detention infringes upon the liberty protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
  • Reasonable Period of Detention: The Court interpreted the post-removal-period detention statute (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)) to include an implicit time limit. Detention beyond six months is permissible only if there is a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
  • Balance of Interests: The government’s need to ensure community safety and enforce immigration laws does not justify indefinite civil detention without procedural safeguards.

Outcome:

• For Zadvydas: His continued detention violated the Constitution because there was no foreseeable prospect of his removal.
• For Ma: The government’s inability to deport him to Cambodia (due to the lack of a repatriation treaty) meant his detention also violated constitutional protections.

This case set a precedent by limiting the government’s authority to indefinitely detain individuals who cannot be deported, reinforcing the principle that liberty is a fundamental right even for non-citizens within U.S. borders.