In the case of Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether immigrants who are awaiting deportation after having been previously deported can be detained indefinitely without a bond hearing under federal immigration law. The respondents were individuals who had already been removed from the United States but later returned illegally and claimed fear of persecution or torture if they were sent back to their home countries. They argued that they should be entitled to a bond hearing while their removal proceedings are pending. The government contended that these individuals could be held without bail under Section 1231, which applies when an alien is ordered removed from the country; whereas respondents asserted that Section 1226 applied instead, which allows for detention during general removal proceedings but also provides for potential release on bond. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government by a vote of six-to-three with Justice Alito delivering majority opinion stating that section 1231 governs and thus no bail hearings required for those aliens whose removal orders have been reinstated.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect. They contended that immigrants who have already been removed once should not be detained without a bond hearing while their removal proceedings are pending again under 8 U.S.C §1226 rather than §1231 as held by the majority. The dissenters believed this approach is more consistent with statutory language and structure, legislative history, purpose and past practice of immigration authorities themselves. They also pointed out potential due process concerns raised by indefinite detention without any chance for bail or review in cases where an immigrant has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country.