View PDF Version

No. 01-1616

In the Supreme Court of the United States

MICHAEL COMFORT, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, PETITIONER

v.

PHU CHAN HOANG, THANH QUOC NGUYEN, AND
PHAM QUA TRUNG

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No. 01-1616

MICHAEL COMFORT, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, PETITIONER

v.

PHU CHAN HOANG, THANH QUOC NGUYEN, AND
PHAM QUA TRUNG

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

The petition in this case demonstrates that the case should be held pending this Court's disposition of the petitions in DeMore v. Kim, petition for cert. pending, No. 01-1491 (filed Apr. 9, 2002), and Elwood v. Radoncic, petition for cert. pending, No. 01-1459 (filed Apr. 4, 2002), and then should be disposed of as appropriate in light of the final dispositions of those cases. Respondents do not contest that demonstration. Indeed, respondents acknowledge the inextricable connection between Kim, Radoncic, and this case. See, e.g., Br. in Opp. 11 (arguing that "[t]his petition should be denied for the same reasons that both [Kim and Radoncic] should be denied.").

Respondents argue generally (Br. in Opp. 11-17) against reviewing the issue of whether the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) satisfy due process. Respondents repeat the arguments made by the aliens in Kim and Radoncic, which are addressed in the government's petitions and reply briefs in those cases. Review of the constitutionality of this Act of Congess is warranted for the reasons stated in the government's submissions in Kim and Radoncic, and in the petition in this case.*

* * * * *

The certiorari petition in this case should be held pending this Court's disposition of the petitions in Kim (No. 01-1491) and Radoncic (No. 01-1459) and then should be disposed of as appropriate in light of the final dispositions of those cases.

Respectfully submitted.

THEODORE B. OLSON
Solicitor General

JUNE 2002

* One factual issue warrants clarification. Respondents state (Br. in Opp. 6 n.8) that they "are eligible for" relief from removal. In fact, they have asserted claims to relief, which will be considered in the pending removal proceedings. See Pet. App. 5a, 6a, 7a; Pet. 10 n.3.