Trump administration asks supreme court to back immigration detention policy
Government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek bond
The Trump administration on Friday asked the US supreme court to let it detain people arrested in its immigration crackdown without a chance to seek bond, even if they have lived in the country for years.
The administration made that request in a filing made public on Friday, asking the court to overturn a May decision by a federal appeals court, which had rejected its reinterpretation of a decades-old immigration law that now underlies its mass detention policy.
The administration filed the appeal earlier this week, before the 6-3 conservative majority court handed it a pair of major wins on immigration policy on Thursday, including by allowing it to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of protections against deportation. The administration is asking the supreme court to review a ruling by a 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based sixth US circuit court of appeals, one of three appeals courts that have joined with hundreds of lower-court judges in rejecting its detention practice.
Two other appeals courts have endorsed the administration’s policy, a fact the US solicitor general, D John Sauer, noted as he urged the justices to intervene and resolve a “critically important question of immigration law” that is fueling thousands of lawsuits by people challenging their detention.
“Detaining aliens who are living in the country after an illegal entry while their removal proceedings unfold prevents those aliens from evading hearings and helps ensure their removal from the United States,” Sauer argued in a petition.
Bucking a longstanding interpretation of immigration law, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last year took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United States, and not just people arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. As a result, immigration judges, who are employed by the department, across the country began ordering mandatory detention. The sixth circuit’s ruling came in cases out of Michigan involving citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala who had resided in the United States for years before being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP), both agencies within the DHS.
It held that the administration misinterpreted a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and that the migrants were denied bond hearings in violation of their due process rights under the US constitution’s fifth amendment.
About the Author
Basically the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
On one hand the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. But at the same time government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek.
Think about it: government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek. That speaks volumes.
The detail about government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek is something people should sit with.
Immigration Appeals has been pushing this agenda for a while now.
Reading that the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation — hard to argue with the logic there.
Considering government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek, it raises some real questions about what happens next.
The fact that the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation really puts things into perspective.
Government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek. Meanwhile the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation.
The fact that government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek really puts things into perspective.
The detail about the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation is something people should sit with.
Reading that government asks justices to allow people who have lived in US for years to be held without chance to seek — hard to argue with the logic there.
Think about it: the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. That speaks volumes.
The bigger issue here is the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation. That changes the calculation.
If the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the justice department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.