Cite as: 538 U. S. 510 (2003)
Opinion of the Court
The only evidence against them was their membership in the Communist Party and "a degree . . . of participation in Communist activities." 342 U. S., at 541. There was no "individualized findin[g]" of likely future dangerousness as to any of the aliens and, in at least one case, there was a specific finding of nondangerousness.8 The Court nonetheless concluded that the denial of bail was permissible "by reference to the legislative scheme to eradicate the evils of Communist activity." Id., at 543.9
8 See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S., at 549 (Black, J., dissenting) (noting that, in at least one case, the alien involved had been found " 'not likely to engage in any subversive activities' " (emphasis added)); see also id., at 550, n. 5 (quoting the District Judge's finding in case No. 35 that " 'I don't know whether it is true . . . that their release is dangerous to the security of the United States' "); id., at 552 ("[T]he bureau agent is not required to prove that a person he throws in jail is . . . 'dangerous' " (emphasis added)); see also id., at 567 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) ("[T]he Attorney General . . . did not deny bail from an individualized estimate of 'the danger to the public safety of [each person's] presence within the community' " (emphasis added)).
9 Apart from its error with respect to the dangerousness determination, the dissent attempts to distinguish Carlson from the present case by arguing that the aliens in Carlson had engaged in " 'personal activity' " in support of a political party Congress considered " 'a menace to the public.' " Post, at 569 (opinion of Souter, J.). In suggesting that this is a distinction, the dissent ignores the "personal activity" that aliens like respondent have undertaken in committing the crimes that subject them to detention in the first instance—personal activity that has been determined with far greater procedural protections than any finding of "active membership" in the Communist Party involved in Carlson. See 342 U. S., at 530 ("[T]he Director made allegation[s], supported by affidavits, that the Service's dossier of each petitioner contained evidence indicating to him that each was at the time of arrest a member of the Communist Party of the United States and had since 1930 participated . . . in the Party's indoctrination of others"). In the present case, respondent became "de-portable" under § 1226(c) only following criminal convictions that were secured following full procedural protections. These convictions, moreover, reflect "personal activity" that Congress considered relevant to future dangerousness. Cf. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 714 (2001) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (noting that "a criminal record accumulated by an
525
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007