News

Supreme Court Sides With Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.


ā€œIn these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,ā€ Alito wrote.

ā€œIf the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,ā€ Ā he continued. Ā ā€œFour other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.ā€

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

ā€œThe law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ā€˜when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,ā€ according to Reuters.

See also  Former CIA Director Burns accuses Trump administration of pursuing a ā€˜campaign of retribution’

Hakeem Jeffries’ 4-word answer to why he skipped Charlie Kirk vigil
Man Who Claimed to Have Shot Charlie Kirk Hit with Multiple Child Sexual Exploitation Charges
University’s Charlie Kirk tribute defaced as students hurl insults at his supporters: ‘Lost souls’
Graphic Video: College Student Who Literally Danced Over Kirk Murder Learns TX Is Out to Crush Terror Supporters
Florida woman charged with felony after allegedly assaulting 73-year-old during Charlie Kirk vigil
Utah man who falsely claimed to be Charlie Kirk shooter hit with child porn charge after arrest
Watch: Young Lib Goes Viral as Charlie’s Murder Wakes Him Up, Realizes He’s Surrounded by Evil but Had No Idea Until Now
FCC chairman defends free speech rights after Kirk assassination fuels calls for censorship of online debate
Judge Dismisses Two Most Serious Murder Charges Against Luigi Mangione
Congress to hold crime hearing in Charlotte following deadly light rail attack
FBI investigating more than 20 people in Discord group tied to Charlie Kirk murder suspect
GOP unveils plan to avert government shutdown, includes $30M security hike after Charlie Kirk killing
Trump Hits the New York Times with $15 Billion Lawsuit
Dave Portnoy speaks on whether Barstool Sports would fire employees for slandering Charlie Kirk
Trump’s Iran ultimatum started a 60-day clock ticking for decisive June strikes, bomber commander reveals

ā€œCivil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,ā€ the news outlet added.

See also  Former agents praise FBI and partners’ work on Kirk manhunt: ā€˜It’s very impressive’

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses.

He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

ā€œI would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,ā€ he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the ā€œgreater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.ā€

ā€œIt is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,ā€ he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, ā€œthe Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.ā€

See also  FCC chairman defends free speech rights after Kirk assassination fuels calls for censorship of online debate

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

Source: WesternJournal

Share this article:
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter