News & Insights

Facts

Two non-citizens with criminal convictions, Kestutis Zadvydas and Kim Ho Ma, were ordered removed from the United States. However, their deportation could not be carried out because their home countries—Germany, Lithuania, and Cambodia—refused to accept them. Both individuals remained detained by U.S. immigration authorities beyond the 90-day statutory removal period. They challenged their continued detention, claiming it violated the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom from indefinite imprisonment without due process.

Analysis

The Supreme Court held that the immigration statute in question, which allows the detention of certain non-citizens beyond the 90-day removal period, cannot be interpreted as granting unlimited detention authority. The Court reasoned that indefinite detention raises serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause, which protects individuals—citizens and non-citizens alike—from arbitrary and permanent imprisonment. The Court established a six-month presumptive limit on detention after a removal order becomes final. After this period, the government must demonstrate that there is a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future” to justify continued detention.

Outcome

The Court ruled in favor of Zadvydas and Ma, finding that their continued detention without a realistic chance of deportation was unconstitutional. It clarified that once deportation becomes unlikely or impossible within a reasonable timeframe, non-citizens must either be released under supervision or provided due process for further detention. The decision emphasizes that the power of the U.S. government to detain non-citizens is not absolute and must be balanced against individual liberty rights.