{"id":21257,"date":"2019-03-19T15:22:24","date_gmt":"2019-03-19T19:22:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=21257"},"modified":"2019-03-19T15:22:26","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T19:22:26","slug":"supreme-court-mandatory-detention-of-criminal-aliens-is-constitutional-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/03\/19\/supreme-court-mandatory-detention-of-criminal-aliens-is-constitutional-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: Mandatory Detention of Criminal Aliens Is Constitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On March 19, the Supreme Court ruled that deportable aliens do not have a right to a bond hearing, even if they were not immediately detained following their release from criminal custody. The 5-4 ruling in Nielsen vs. Preap<\/a>,<\/em> affirmed that a non-citizen is subject to mandatory detention under\u00a0section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)<\/a> for past criminal offenses that make them deportable. The ruling overturns a decision handed down by the notoriously activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff, Mony Preap, and a similar class of immigrants argued<\/a> that mandatory detention should not apply to them and they should be released because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not detain them \u201cimmediately\u201d after they were released from criminal custody. The immigrants further argued they deserved due process and a bond hearing so they could demonstrate they were not a public safety threat and would not flee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs\u2019 argument boiled down to grammatical\nnitpicking \u2013 can the government detain criminal aliens if ICE did not\n\u201cimmediately\u201d take custody after their release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEspecially hard to swallow is respondents\u2019 insistence that for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention under \u00a71226(c), the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door\u2014the \u201cparking lot\u201d or \u201cbus stop\u201d would do),\u201d Justice Samuel Alito noted in his majority opinion<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito is referring to a provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1226(c), which mandates that an appropriate government agency \u201cshall take into custody\u201d certain immigrants during the period of their deportation or removal proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such an immigrant is Mony Preap, the lead plaintiff in\nthe case. He is a legal permanent resident but had two drug convictions which\nqualified him for deportation. Although he was released from criminal custody\nin 2006, he was not detained by immigration authorities until 2013, when he was\nreleased from jail after an arrest for another offense. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Alito noted writing for the majority<\/a> affirming the right of mandatory detention, the plaintiffs were not asking for review of an order of removal, nor were they challenging the decision to detain and\/or deport them in the first place. In fact, they did not even take issue with \u201cany part of the process by which their removability will be determined.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh\nsaid it \u201cwould be odd\u201d that Congress would pass an Act that \u201cmandated detention\nof particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of\ndanger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings,\u201d\nbut allowed for them to roam free during their removal proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito also took a swipe at sanctuary jurisdictions by\nmentioning that there are circumstances when an \u201cimmediate\u201d arrest is not\npossible, such as when \u201cstate and local officials sometimes rebuff the\nGovernment\u2019s request that they give notice when a criminal alien will be\nreleased.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alito pointed out that in less than three years\n(January 2014 to September 2016) there were a total of 21,205 declined requests\nfrom ICE in 567 counties in 48 states including the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He then added that \u201csuch local resistance [was]unheard\nof when Congress enacted the language of \u00a71226(c) in 1996.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision is an important victory\nfor the rule of law and the American people. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 19, the Supreme Court ruled that deportable aliens do not have a right to a bond hearing, even if they were not immediately detained following their release from criminal custody. The 5-4 ruling in Nielsen vs. Preap, affirmed that a non-citizen is subject to mandatory detention under\u00a0section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":12712,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[4796,6],"tags":[1524,883,911,1519],"yst_prominent_words":[4944,4943,4940,1922,4935,4521,4743,2118,1963,2018,4936,4941,4945,1925,4939,4934,2275,4937,4938,4946],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21257"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21257"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21257\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21258,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21257\/revisions\/21258"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12712"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21257"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}