Jump to content

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 13 September 2023 (top: add "use mdy dates" template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
Argued January 11, 2021
Decided June 29, 2021
Full case nameTae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, et al.
Docket no.19-897
Citations594 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityAlito (except as to footnote 4), joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
PluralityAlito (footnote 4), joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceThomas (except for footnote 4 and in the judgment), joined by Gorsuch
DissentBreyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Background

The respondents in this case were deported by the federal government and later reentered the country, claiming asylum. They then sought release from detention via bond hearings. The district court sided with their claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, over the dissent of Judge Julius N. Richardson. The federal government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted on June 15, 2020. The Supreme Court held oral arguments on January 11, 2021. On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, holding that the respondents were not entitled to bond hearings for release.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Chin, Gabriel (June 29, 2021). "Bond eligibility for certain noncitizens divides court along ideological lines". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 4, 2021.