قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / No bail hearings for imprisoned immigrants, rules of the Supreme Court

No bail hearings for imprisoned immigrants, rules of the Supreme Court



The decision came one day after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal for Trump's government to shelve a program that would protect 700,000 young immigrants from deportation, hampering legislative efforts to solve the problem.

Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represented the immigrants demanding hearings on Tuesday, said he was disappointed with the decision.

"The Trump government is trying to increase immigration detention to record levels on immigrant communities," he said. "We have shown by this case that when immigrants receive a fair hearing, judges often release them on the basis of their individual circumstances."

Richard A. Samp, attorney at the Washington Legal Foundation, filed a statement for 29 members of The Congress endorsed a strict interpretation of immigration laws and said the decision was a victory for public safety.

"If Congress decides that criminals convicted of crimes can repeat their crimes, they should block them until they can." Established courts are not empowered to question this resolve by trying to rewrite the law. The majority in the case of Tuesday ruled on closer grounds that the immigration laws did not allow their hearings by their terms and he returned the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circle in San Francisco and instructed him to consider whether the constitution prescribes the hearings – but only if various procedural blocks could be overcome.

The Ninth Circuit had decided After a six-month period, it must be determined whether prisoners who are not flight risks or a threat to public safety be released in the course of their cases Deciding on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not on the constitution, although it said that his reading was necessary to avoid constitutional difficulties.

"The importance of the relevant legal provisions is clear – and clearly against the decision of the Court of Appeal," wrote Judge Alito.

Supreme Judge John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy join the majority However, these two judges also wrote that the Supreme Court was not able to hear the case at all.

In other words, Justice Breyer wrote: "We can and should read the appropriate legal provisions to require a bail on prolonged detention without violating the legal language or the basic purposes of the provisions." [19659012] The judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the appeal of Justice Breyer. Www.mjfriendship.de/de/index.php?op…ew&id=6 # 1991 Justice Alito accused his colleagues of taking extreme liberties with the English language "The disagreement obviously has a strong gut when it comes to it. Englisch: www.mjfriendship.de/en/index.php?op…95&Itemid=55 to cause a linguistic trauma, "wrote Justice Alito. "The distortions necessary to draw these remarkable conclusions are an unforgettable sight."

The case itself had undergone twists at the Supreme Court. It was first announced in 2016 in front of an eight-member court by the death of Judge Antonin Scalia. The judges were stuck between 4 and 4, and the case was resumed in October after Justice Gorsuch's accession to the court.

After the second argument, Justice Elena Kagan announced her rejection of the case, presumably after she found out she was working on an aspect of it as Advocate General of the United States. She had participated in both arguments, and her interrogation indicated that she had voted with the court's liberal wing.

"You can not close people without any findings of danger, without finding the risk of flying, for an indefinite period of time and not in a fair process," she said in 2016.

In his opposition, Judge Breyer wrote that the colonel The court, which had asked for additional pleadings on the constitutional issue, should have reached this issue and decided whether the persons held in the United States have the right to be free from unjustified indefinite detention.

He found that the average prison term was one year and often much longer. "Many of those who hold back the government eventually receive the relief they seek." For example, he wrote: "Two-thirds of asylum seekers eventually seek asylum."

Justice Breyer concluded the opposition he read in relation to the Bank's founding documents and principles.

"We just have to remember the words of the Declaration of Independence, which insists that all men and women have a certain inalienable right," he said. "All we have to do is remember that among them is the right to freedom."

"It is not difficult to read the words of the Statute as compatible with this fundamental right," he said. "I would find it much more difficult, in fact, I would find it alarming to believe that Congress wrote these statutory words to put thousands of people in the US in danger of being detained for a long time, but without hope a deposit. " 19659023] Mr. Arulanantham, A.C.L.U. Lawyer, the case said, Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204, was not over.

"We are pleased," he said, "to go back to the lower courts to show these statutes, now interpreted by The Supreme Court, which requires a detention without hearing, violates the clause of due process."

Continue reading the main story


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *