Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Clark v. Martinez

Docket No.: 03-878
Certiorari Granted: 3/1/2004
Argued: October 13, 2004
Decided: January 12, 2005
Consolidated with: 03-7434

Topics:

8 U.S.C. 1231, Civil Rights, Deportation, Bill of Rights, Due Process, ERISA, Hobbs Act, IIRIRA, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Immigration and Nationality Act, Immigration and Naturalization, Labor Department, Natural Resources, Suspension Clause, habeas, habeas corpus, immigration, immunity from suit, judicial review, pension plan, preemption, sovereign immunity, stare decisis

PartyNames: A. Neil Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Washington, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Sergio Suarez Martinez
Petitioner: A. Neil Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Washington, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Respondent: Sergio Suarez Martinez

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 03-35053, 1/18/03, not reported
Supreme Court Docket

A. Neil Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Washington, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
v.
Sergio Suarez Martinez
543 U.S. 371 (2005)
Question Presented:

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U .S. 678 (2001), this Court avoided constitutional concerns by interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) to limit to a "reasonable time" the period that permanent resident aliens may be detained following final orders directing their removal from the United States. Applying that standard, the Court held that a resident alien generally may not be detained under Section 1231(a)(6) for more than six months after being ordered removed, if the alien demonstrates that there is not a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The question presented in this case is whether Section 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas compel the release of an arriving alien who was apprehended at the border of the United States, denied admission, and ordered removed from the United States.

Question:

In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court said admitted immigrants could be detained for deportation for more than 90 days, but no longer than reasonably necessary. Did this ruling apply to inadmissible aliens, such as Benitez and Martinez?

Note:

CERT. GRANTED: 03/01/2004

Clark v. Martinez
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 13, 2004

Holding: is affirmed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 7 votes for Martinez, 2 vote(s) against
Vote: 6-3
Opinion By: Justice Antonin Scalia
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)