533US2
700
Unit: $U87
[10-21-02 18:35:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN
ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS
Opinion of the Court
longer authorized by statute. In that case, of course, the
alien’s release may and should be conditioned on any of the
various forms of supervised release that are appropriate in
the circumstances, and the alien may no doubt be returned
to custody upon a violation of those conditions. See supra,
at 695 (citing 8 U. S. C. §§ 1231(a)(3), 1253 (1994 ed., Supp. V);
8 CFR § 241.5 (2001)). And if removal is reasonably foreseeable, the habeas court should consider the risk of the alien’s
committing further crimes as a factor potentially justifying
confinement within that reasonable removal period. See
supra, at 690–692.
We recognize, as the Government points out, that review
must take appropriate account of the greater immigrationrelated expertise of the Executive Branch, of the serious administrative needs and concerns inherent in the necessarily
extensive INS efforts to enforce this complex statute, and
the Nation’s need to “speak with one voice” in immigration
matters. Brief for Respondents in No. 99–7791, at 19. But
we believe that courts can take appropriate account of such
matters without abdicating their legal responsibility to review the lawfulness of an alien’s continued detention.
Ordinary principles of judicial review in this area recognize primary Executive Branch responsibility. They counsel
judges to give expert agencies decisionmaking leeway in
matters that invoke their expertise. See Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 651–652
(1990). They recognize Executive Branch primacy in foreign policy matters. See Container Corp. of America v.
Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U. S. 159, 196 (1983). And they consequently require courts to listen with care when the Government’s foreign policy judgments, including, for example,
the status of repatriation negotiations, are at issue, and to
grant the Government appropriate leeway when its judgments rest upon foreign policy expertise.
We realize that recognizing this necessary Executive leeway will often call for difficult judgments. In order to limit