NPR reports that the Court ruled 5-3, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings. The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.

The Supreme Court ruling follows a Trump administration appeal of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year that imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months, as long as they aren't considered a flight risk or a danger to national security.

“To impose a rigid six-month rule like the Court of Appeals did is really a mistake,” Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn said in November.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the right of the government to detain immigrants while it determines whether they should be allowed in the country.

"Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.

The ACLU took up his case, eventually winning his release and the cancellation of his deportation order. The government's appeal was begun under the Obama administration, and continued after President Trump took office last year.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/375791-supreme-court-rules-immigrants-can-be-detained-indefinitely

FUCKLIBS.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498150)

The bail questions before us are technical but at heart they are simple. We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have “certain unalienable Rights,” and that among them is the right to “Liberty.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498180)

Respondent Alejandro Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Since 1987, he has also been a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In April 2004, after Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle, the Government detained him under §1226 and sought to remove him from the country. At his removal hearing, Rodriguez argued both that he was not removable and, in the alternative, that he was eligible for relief from removal. In July 2004, an Immigration Judge ordered Rodriguez deported to Mexico. Rodriguez chose to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but five months later the Board agreed that Rodriguez was subject to mandatory removal. Once again, Rodriguez chose to seek further review, this time petitioning the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the Board’s decision. In May 2007, while Rodriguez was still litigating his removal in the Court of Appeals, he filed a habeas petition in the District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that he was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. Rodriguez’s case was consolidated with another, similar case brought by Alejandro Garcia, and together they moved for class certification. The District Court denied their motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F. 3d 1105, 1111 (2010). It concluded that the proposed class met the certification requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it remanded the case to the District Court. Id., at 1111, 1126.

trict Court. Id., at 1111, 1126. On remand, the District Court certified the following class: “[A]ll non-citizens within the Central District of California who: (1) are or were detained for longer than six months pursuant to one of the general immigration detention statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including judicial review, (2) are not and have not been detained pursuant to a national security detention statute, and (3) have not been afforded a hearing to determine whether their detention is justified.” Class Certification Order in Rodriguez v. Hayes, CV 07–03239 (CD Cal., Apr. 5, 2010). The District Court named Rodriguez as class representative of the newly certified class, ibid., and then organized the class into four subclasses based on the four “general immigration detention statutes” under which it understood the class members to be detained: Sections 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a). See Order Granting Plaintiff ’s Motion for Class Certification in Rodriguez v. Holder, CV 07–03239 (CD Cal., Mar. 8, 2011) (2011 Order); Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F. 3d 1127, 1130–1131 (CA9 2013). Each of the four subclasses was certified to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief. 2011 Order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the §1231(a) subclass had been improperly certified, but it affirmed the certification of the other three subclasses. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F. 3d 1060, 1074, 1085–1086 (CA9 2015).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498484)

Respondent Alejandro Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen. Since 1987, he has also been a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In April 2004, after Rodriguez was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle, the Government detained him under §1226 and sought to remove him from the country. At his removal hearing, Rodriguez argued both that he was not removable and, in the alternative, that he was eligible for relief from removal. In July 2004, an Immigration Judge ordered Rodriguez deported to Mexico. Rodriguez chose to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but five months later the Board agreed that Rodriguez was subject to mandatory removal. Once again, Rodriguez chose to seek further review, this time petitioning the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the Board’s decision. In May 2007, while Rodriguez was still litigating his removal in the Court of Appeals, he filed a habeas petition in the District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that he was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. Rodriguez’s case was consolidated with another, similar case brought by Alejandro Garcia, and together they moved for class certification. The District Court denied their motion, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F. 3d 1105, 1111 (2010). It concluded that the proposed class met the certification requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it remanded the case to the District Court. Id., at 1111, 1126.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498570)

Are you really against an expedited deportation process? Where people get a hearing sooner?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498795)

think outside the box, dumbass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498447)

Wikibear: yaaaay!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498965)

Lol @ lawyers being anal about footnotes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35498966)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-throws-out-ruling-that-said-detained-immigrants-deserve-bond-hearings/2018/02/27/fa11f36a-1bd1-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35499068)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1204_f29g.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3905423&forum_id=2#35500154)