Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
| Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 11, 2022 Decided June 13, 2022 | |
| Full case name | Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Antonio Arteaga-Martinez |
| Docket no. | 19-896 |
| Citations | 596 U.S. 573 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not require the government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch (Part I) |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 | |
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1231(a)(6) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not require the government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.