CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1491. Argued January 15, 2003—Decided April 29, 2003

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)] provides that the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is removable from this country because he has been convicted of one of a specified set of crimes. Respondent is a citizen of the Republic of South Korea. He entered the United States in 1984, at the age of six, and became a lawful permanent resident of the United States two years later. In July 1996, he was convicted of first-degree burglary in state court in California and, in April 1997, he was convicted of a second crime, petty theft with priors. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged respondent with being deportable from the United States in light of these convictions, and detained him pending his removal hearing.

Respondent filed a habeas corpus action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the constitutionality of §1226(c). He argued that his detention under §1226(c) violated due process because the INS had made no determination that he posed either a danger to society or a flight risk.

The District Court agreed with respondent that §1226(c)'s requirement of mandatory detention for certain criminal aliens was unconstitutional. The District Court therefore granted respondent's petition subject to the INS' prompt undertaking of an individualized bond hearing to determine whether respondent posed either a flight risk or a danger to the community. Following that decision, the District Director of the INS released respondent on $5,000 bond.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed [this decision in Kim v. Ziglar]. That court held that §1226(c) violates substantive due process as applied to respondent because he is a permanent resident alien. It noted that permanent resident aliens constitute the most favored category of aliens and that they have the right to reside permanently in the United States, to work here, and to apply for citizenship…. The Court of Appeals concluded that the INS had not provided a justification for no-bail civil detention sufficient to overcome a lawful permanent resident alien's liberty interest.

I. We address first the argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) deprives us of jurisdiction to hear this case….