The U.S. Supreme Court case Kestutis Zadvydas v. Christine G. Davis and Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, centered on the issue of indefinite detention of deportable aliens by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Kestutis Zadvydas was a stateless person born to Lithuanian parents in a displaced persons camp in Germany after World War II who had been ordered deported due to criminal convictions but no country would accept him. The court ruled that under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, it is unconstitutional for INS to indefinitely detain an immigrant under a removal order if there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. This ruling established that immigrants are entitled to constitutional protections when they are within U.S territory regardless of their legal status.

In the dissenting opinion for Kestutis Zadvydas v. Christine G. Davis and Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of immigration law. He contended that Congress had given clear authority to detain aliens indefinitely if their removal from the country was not possible within 90 days due to circumstances beyond control such as refusal by other countries to accept them or lack of travel documents. According to him, this power is necessary for national security reasons and public safety concerns because some detained aliens may pose a risk if released into society. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on constitutional avoidance doctrine which led them to interpret statutory provisions in light of potential constitutional issues rather than based on plain language used by Congress.