Supreme Court says government has broad authority when detaining some immigrants

Supreme Court says government has broad authority when detaining some immigrants

On "America's Newsroom" Wednesday, the Harvard Law professor emeritus said expanding the Supreme Court would be a "terrible idea". "These aliens may secure their release by proving to the satisfaction of a Department of Homeland Security officer or an immigration judge that they would not endanger others and would not flee if released from custody". Under one proposed plan, the court would be expanded from nine to 15 justices: Democrats in the Senate would choose five, Republicans would choose five, and together those 10 justices would pick another five, in a vote independent of the people who picked them. "But, as has so often been the case, when either or both of the rights of immigrants and the War on Drugs are involved, the court is more than happy to ignore these traditions", Lemieux said.

The case brought before the top court was a California class-action lawsuit by a group of noncitizens, most with permanent residency cards, whose lawyers argued they should be entitled to a hearing if they were detained by federal authorities more than a day after their release from prison.

Speaking of an "invasion" of illegal immigrants and criminals, Trump last week signed the first veto of his presidency, overriding congressional opposition to secure emergency funding to build a wall on the Mexican border, the signature policy of his administration. The law is clear, he wrote, that the government can not hold an immigrant without a bail hearing unless the individual is detained when released from criminal custody.

Breyer's dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. If the person is not detained within that time, they should get a hearing where they can argue for their release, Breyer wrote.

More news: Obama DOJ blocked Federal Bureau of Investigation from scrutinizing Clinton Foundation

Kansas' highest court ruled in 2017 that the state couldn't prosecute those crimes by relying on information that is on a required federal work authorization form, the I-9. In each case, litigation against the federal government started before Trump took office.

The Supreme Court interpreted a provision that applies to immigrants who have committed certain unsafe crimes or who have connections to terrorism.

Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process.

In those cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the immigrants, but other appeals courts had sided with the government in similar cases. S. C. §1226 (c), which stated that immigrants arrested for deportation must be detained "when [they are] released" from custody on criminal charges and must generally be detained without a bond hearing until questions surrounding their removal were resolved. The 5-4 decision was a win for the Trump administration and helps to close a number of "catch-and-release" loopholes than enable illegal immigration.