Court_Case
Fleeing Fidel

Oh snap! We just showed you a modal..

Because we can

Cool huh? Ok, enough teasing around..

Go to our W3.CSS Tutorial to learn more!

Modal footer



"Rehnquist Court (1994-2005) Members,  William H. Rehnquist,  John Paul Stevens,  Sandra Day O'Connor,  Antonin Scalia,  Anthony M. Kennedy,  David H. Souter,  Clarence Thomas,  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and  Stephen G. Breyer" (Oyez, 1994).

Background Information

Benitez and Martinez were paroled into the U.S. by the attorney general and commited a series of criminal offenses. Cuba did not accept them in which, "Benitez and Martinez argued that because deportation to Cuba was unforeseeable, they could not be detained longer than the 90 days allowed by federal law. They pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Zadvydas v. Davis that said the government can detain beyond 90 days immigrants who were admitted to the United States" ("Clark V. Martinez"). For Martinez, the district court and ninth circuit permitted release. For Benitez, the district court and eleventh circuit did not allow his release.

Oral Arguments
❝

"When we are dealing with individuals who, although absolutely excludable, were nonetheless welcomed into the United States by a public announcement of the President of the United States, have been allowed into the American population, just as clearly and as readily as they would have been under any other protocol of admission."
- Justice Souter

❝

"The statutory words in Zadvydas, the words that the Attorney General may detain this individual beyond the removal period, are read in Zadvydas to mean beyond the removal period... may detain beyond the removal period means for a reasonable time, presumably 6 months, presumptively, related." 
 - Justice Breyer

❝

"The immigration law works together in it's various elements, and section 1182, when parole is revoked, treats the alien then as an applicant for admission, and section 1229 places the applicant for admission into removal proceedings."
-Christine Dahl

Our Interview with Mrs. Christine Dahl

Title 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(a)(6) (Law regarding Detention)

The law applies to three classes of aliens, "One, aliens like those before us today held to be inadmissible under Section 1182; two, aliens who have been admitted but have been held to be removable under Sections 1227(a)(1)(C), (a)(2), or (a)(4); and lastly aliens whom the Secretary determines to be a danger to the community or a flight risk" (Scalia, Majority Opinion, Oyez).

"The laws that explain the indefinite detention of aliens only for a  forseeable repatriation "(United States Title 8-Alien and Nationality Act 1231).

"Court case ruling and the Justices' decisions"(Oyez).

Majority Opinion

The Court used precedent from Zadvydas v. Davis, that 1231(a)(6) that limited detention beyond 90 days. "The question was if that principle would apply to detainees that were inadmissable. Using precedent, Martinez and Benitez were released as inadmissable aliens with an unforseeable deportation. In a 7-2 decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said the requirement that immigrants be detained no longer than reasonably necessary for deportation applied to both admissible and inadmissible immigrants. Readmission to Cuba was unforeseeable, so the detentions of Martinez and Benitez were unreasonable" (Oyez). 

HomeTimelineBroken BeginningsPropagandaFreedom RumorImmigration Policy
Mariel BoatliftProcessingMeet Marielita
ImpactPenalver's Perspective
Court CaseResources

Fleeing Fidel & Finding Florida
The Mariel Boatlift an Immigration Breakthrough

Clark v. Martinez

"Antonin Scalia" (oyez, shanks).

❝

"For this Court however to sanction indefinite detention in the phases of Zadvydas would establish within our jurisprudence beyond the power of Congress to remedy the dangerous principle that judges can give the same statutory text, different meaning in different cases."
- Justice Antonin Scalia

❝

"Zadvyas held, it can be read to suggest "less than unlimited discretion to detain", it can not however be interpreted to do both at the same time".
- Justice Antonin Scalia

❝

"In the eyes of the law, during all these years Marielitos remained where that were in the spring and summer of 1890: treading the murky water of Mariel."-Mirta Ojito

"Aliens apply for employment and the process for employment of Mariel parolees" (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Removal).

Immigration Impact 

"The court's decision explained that the Marielitos in the United States has rights. The Marielitos were released with supervision after serving their sentence. The release allowed Marielitos to be with their family until repatriation was foreseeable. This set precedent by showing Marielitos truly arrived in the United States and should be treated respectfully in court" (Dahl, Personal Interview).


"Just because it is legal does not make it right."-Christine Dahl Federal Public Defender