The U.S. Supreme court recognized the government’s right to detain immigrants previously convicted, even years after release, without a hearing. This decision was made by the court today, led by Samuel Alito by a majority of 5 votes against 4.
flickr.com/Daniel Huizinga/CC
The suit was filed by legal residents-immigrants who had criminal records in the past that could at any moment lead them to a new arrest. Court 9th district previously supported their claim, ruling that they can’t be detained without a hearing in the case, but also have the right to bail. Today’s decision of the Supreme court interprets the law in favor of the administration trump that support arrests.
Judge Samuel Alito in the decision noted that the interpretation of the 9-th district contrary to the law established by Congress for immigrants who have committed certain crimes. «Four other district rejected this interpretation, and we agree that the interpretation of the ninth circuit is wrong».
Judge Brett kavanaugh said that the decision was based entirely on existing laws. He said he would be «very strange law requiring the detention of illegal immigrants, but at the same time allowing them to remain free during the procedure of removal. The court correctly finds that the detention is obligatory.»
However, he noted that the court’s decision concerned a narrow question: «It’s not about whether a non-citizen to be deported from the United States on the basis of criminal offenses and not on whether Congress to entrust the Executive power to detain illegal immigrants during the procedure for the removal or prior to removal».
Judge Stephen Breyer disagreed with the decision stating that the law is interpreted incorrectly: «Congress intends to uphold the values enshrined in the laws of the United States, and will not allow the government to detain people years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely. In my opinion, the court must properly interpret the words of this law, respectively the Congress and to our core values. I’m afraid that the opposite interpretation would seriously undermine the principles that have long been the Foundation of American law.»
