| Clark v. Martinez | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 13, 2004 Decided January 12, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Martinez |
| Docket no. | 03-878 |
| Citations | 543 U.S. 371 (more) 125 S. Ct. 716; 160 L. Ed. 2d 734; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 627 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| Under §1231(a)(6), the Secretary may detain inadmissible aliens beyond the 90-day removal period, but only for so long as is reasonably necessary to achieve removal; a six-month presumptive detention period applies to inadmissible aliens. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case ending the detention of people who had been denied refugee status. They were kept in prison awaiting deportation even though they could not in fact be deported due to a political stalemate with Cuba.[1] An alien can be found inadmissible on the grounds of poor health, criminal history, substance trafficking, prostitution/human trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity, etc.[2] The deportation process requires a ruling from an immigration judge for violating immigration laws.[3] The case resolved conflicting rulings made by the 9th and 11th circuits on whether Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)[4] was applicable to inadmissible immigrants, Sergio Martinez and Daniel Benitez. The cases of Martinez and Benitez were later consolidated by the Supreme Court.
Zadvydas v. Davis stated that the government can detain admissible and admitted aliens only long enough beyond the 90-day removal period if necessary for deportation. If deportation is unforeseeable then the immigrant must be released.[5] Zadvydas v. Davis fails to define if immigrants inadmissible to the U.S. have these same protections.
The Supreme Court decision (7-2) found that Zadvydas v. Davis was in fact applicable to inadmissible immigrants. In the case of Martinez and Benitez where deportation to Cuba is implausible, further detention is unnecessary.[5] The court however did not grant constitutional protection from indefinite detention to inadmissible immigrants.[6]
- ^ Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1182.
- ^ "Deportation". U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
- ^ Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
- ^ a b "Clark v. Martinez". The Oyez Project. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
- ^ Rodriguez, Jose. "Clark v. Martinez: Limited Statutory Construction Required by Constitutional Avoidance Offers Fragile Protection for Inadmissible Immigrants from Indeanite Detention" (PDF). Harvard Law. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search