* 121 S. Ct. 2491,150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001).

1 Together with No. 00-38, Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Kim Ho Ma, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

1 The Court also cites London v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 74 L. Ed. 2d 21, 103 S. Ct. 321 (1982), as oblique support for the claim that the due process protection afforded aliens under final order of removal may vary depending upon status and circumstance. Ante, at 13. But that case is entirely inapt because it did not involve an alien subject to a final order of deportation. The Court also cites Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 770, 94 L. Ed. 1255, 70 S. Ct. 936 (1950), ante, at 13, but that case is doubly irrelevant: because it dealt not with deportation but with the military's detention of enemy aliens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and because it rejected habeas corpus jurisdiction anyway