SCOTUS rules that illegal aliens do not have the right to bond hearing

Leftists were dealt a blow this week after the Supreme Court ruled in Garland v. Gonzalez that illegal aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention. 

All three individuals illegally entered the U.S. after having been previously deported

According to the Daily Caller, Monday’s decision covered two separate cases involving three individuals, all of whom entered the United States illegally after having been previously deported.

The first concerned a pair of Mexican citizens who filed a class-action lawsuit after they had been held in detention for half a year.

In the second, a man from El Salvador filed suit to obtain a bond hearing as part of an effort to secure his release from custody.

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Justice Sonia Sotomayer was quoted as stating in her opinion.

However, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) does not permit class-wide injunction, although injunctive relief may be sought by multiple named plaintiffs.

He said the legislation “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”

ACLU says the ruling will “have life-threatening consequences”

Monday’s decision was blasted by the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a statement issued following its release.

“Denying bond hearings can have life-threatening consequences, especially given ICE’s record of abuse, neglect, and death in its detention centers,” the organization declared.

The ACLU also quoted Matt Adams, an attorney who serves as legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

“The Supreme Court has turned its back on its prior interpretation of the statute, which required a custody determination after six months,” Adams complained.

“To now find that the statute allows for indefinite detention is contrary to a fundamental principle upon which our system was founded — that government officials may not lock up a person without at least providing them their day in court to contest whether their confinement is justified,” he added.

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook

Welcome to our comments section. We want to hear from you!

Any comments with profanity, advocacy of violence, harassment, personally identifiable information or other violations will be removed. If you feel your comment has been removed in error please contact us!

Latest Posts