Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Clark v. Martinez: The Zadvydas Detention Limit Applied to Inadmissible Noncitizens

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 27, 2026

Clark v. Martinez applies one consistent construction of the post-removal-period detention statute to different categories of noncitizens.

Cuba would not accept the detainees’ return

Two Cuban nationals had final removal orders but remained detained because the United States could not effect removal. The government argued that the Zadvydas limitation did not protect people treated as inadmissible.

One statutory phrase receives one construction

Section 1231(a)(6) uses the same operative language for several categories. The Court rejected interpreting those words differently depending on which category the detainee occupied.

Detention is limited when removal is not foreseeable

Zadvydas construed the statute to authorize detention only for a period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal, with six months as a presumptively reasonable period. That construction also governed the inadmissible category.

Disposition

The Court affirmed relief requiring release under supervision when removal was not reasonably foreseeable. The government may respond to changed circumstances under the statutory framework.

Key takeaways

• Calculate detention from the removal period accurately.
• Gather evidence about travel documents and receiving-country cooperation.
• Use the six-month presumption as a framework, not an automatic endpoint.
• Address conditions and later changes affecting foreseeability.