Immigration law

Supreme Court Gives Feds a Long Leash To Detain Immigrants With Criminal Records

Conservative majority declines to consider constitutional concerns of holding noncitizens without hearings.

|

ICE raid protest signs
Brphoto / Dreamstime.com

Federal immigration officials have the authority to track down immigrants and noncitizens who have committed certain crimes, months and even possibly years after they've been released, and hold them without bond hearings for potential deportation, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The ruling in Nielsen v Preap was narrowly decided, 5-4, along ideological lines, with the more conservative justices agreeing with President Donald Trump's administration that immigration officials do not need to provide bond hearings and offer the possibility of release to people who have committed certain crimes and are facing possible deportation. And immigration officials have this authority even if they don't get around to detaining these people for months or even years after the offense was committed.

This is a complex and highly technical case, and while there's some coverage suggesting that this is a big victory over sanctuary cities, I'd be reluctant to classify it that way. The ruling does, however, mean that those sweeps where feds come swooping into communities looking for deportable immigrants are potentially even more of a worry for the targets. And sanctuary cities (where local authorities deliberately decline to check the immigration status of people they interact with or share that information with the federal government) are top targets for these sweeps.

So who is this case about? People who are 1.) living in the country completely legally and are not fugitives from justice, who've 2.) been previously arrested, convicted, and even served time for crimes that are deportable under federal law, but 3.) were not deported immediately (or even years) after serving their sentence.

One of the defendants at the heart of this case—Eduardo Vega Padilla, a legal permanent resident since he moved to the U.S. as a toddler in 1966—was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in 1997 and 1999. He was arrested while on probation for that offense when officers found an unloaded pistol in a shed behind his house, and he served six months in jail in 2002. Eleven years later, officials for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) came for him and held him in detention for possible deportation.

Can they do that? And is Padilla entitled to a hearing and possible release from detention so that he can fight his case? Today, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration officials do not have to detain someone immediately after they're released from jail in order to eventually deport them for the offense that landed them in jail; it also ruled that noncitizens who have committed certain crimes (detailed in legislation passed by Congress in the 1990s) are not entitled to a bond hearing that would allow them to fight their case from outside of a jail.

The ruling does not appear to address due process issues or concerns about indefinite detention that might be raised by the Fifth or Eighth Amendments of the Constitution. In the majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts (Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch teamed up to concur in a separate piece), the justices noted that this case was decided over the statutory interpretations of the law and not the constitutionality of it, because the respondents did not challenge whether it was constitutional to detain people like Padilla. They concluded:

We emphasize that respondents' arguments here have all been statutory. Even their constitutional concerns are offered as just another pillar in an argument for their preferred reading of the language of §1226(c)—an idle pillar here because the statute is clear. While respondents might have raised a head-on constitutional challenge to §1226(c), they did not. Our decision today on the meaning of that statutory provision does not foreclose as-applied challenges—that is, constitutional challenges to applications of the statute as we have now read it.

That's something of a hint: if similar plaintiffs want such a case heard again, they need to make a constitutional argument.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) warned about the significant consequences of such an extreme application of these statutes and argued that these statutes cannot be considered without exploring the constitutional implications:

These aliens may then be detained for months, sometimes years, without the possibility of release; they may have been convicted of only minor crimes—for example, minor drug offenses, or crimes of "moral turpitude" such as illegally downloading music or possessing stolen bus transfers; and they sometimes may be innocent spouses or children of a suspect person. Moreover, for a high percentage of them, it will turn out after months of custody that they will not be removed from the country because they are eligible by statute to receive a form of relief from removal such as cancellation of removal.

We should definitely be concerned of the constitutional implications when it appears Congress has granted the executive branch the authority (and even a mandate) to deny people bail without judicial review. Breyer concluded in his dissent, "I fear that the Court's contrary interpretation will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood."

Read the court ruling here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

117 responses to “Supreme Court Gives Feds a Long Leash To Detain Immigrants With Criminal Records

  1. As a bad hombre whose ‘homeland’ is Israel, I find this pretty terrifying.

    1. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

      >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

      So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Just4Work.com

    3. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
      >>=====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. “He was arrested while on probation for that offense when officers found an unloaded pistol in a shed behind his house, and he served six months in jail in 2002.”

    Any increase in the enforcement of gun laws or increase in gun control will have more racially unequal effects than the War on Drugs.

    That is the consequence of Democrats and the media ignoring the insanely disproportionate amount of gun violence in the black community, and declaring “black on black crime” to not be worthy of discussion. Who commits most gun violence in this country? Who is most likely to have an illegal gun? Who is most likely to get sent to jail for a victimless crime of possession?

    Hint: It’s not the white “gun nuts” with AR-15s.

    1. And while they never admit it and our press is a joke, the beginning of the War on Drugs, even well after the racially unequal effects were being seen, saw HUGE bipartisan support, including many influential black urban leaders, and anybody who argued against it was met with the same response as gun control opponents get now: “So you want our children to die!?!?!”

      1. True but we are learning from history. The NZ shooting will actually backfire. Because it used to be that gun control was to protect us from incels and autists. But today the threat is white nationalists, and even the liberal Jews on my timeline aren’t eager to fork our rights over to them.

        1. But they still think we can solve the issue by just banning all the guns.

        2. But, the NZ killer was a radical Lefty who spent time in Israel!

  3. Not good, but it seems like the door is open to get this knocked down eventually.

    1. Yeah, sounds like the majority gave some fairly broad hints.

    2. We can knock it down by getting a new president and never electing anyone like Trump again.

      1. That means he’s doing a good job, as you are an awful person who wants awful things for America.

      2. Or, you can wait until the Trump get re-elected in 2020, the hag RBG dies, and we bring back constitutional verdicts again…which means immigration laws get enforced, and open-borders kooks like you can move to the Nordic nations.

  4. One of the many reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton was I knew she’d appoint libertarian-friendly RBG-style justices. But the Kremlin asset in the White House rushed dangerous right-wing extremists Gorsuch and Kavanaugh through confirmation.

    The good news is Democratic Presidential candidates are talking about expanding the Supreme Court. When we have a Democrat in the White House by 2021 at the latest, we’ll get new justices who are more sympathetic to the Koch / Reason position on immigration.

    1. ?along ideological lines, with the more conservative justices agreeing with President Donald Trump’s administration?.

      Yes, Mr Shackford’s ideological snit was rather feeble, compared to this doozy from the BBC, where we are reminded of who’s who in every other sentence :

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
      world-us-canada-47631269

      The court’s liberal justices dissented from the conservative decision?.
      ?.In the conservative opinion, Associate Justice Samuel Alito said?.
      ?.Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent for the court’s liberals?

      Remember there are no Obama Judges or Trump Judges 🙂

  5. The asshole party only ever whined about big govt because it got in the way of their racist state laws.

    1. I am familiar with the history of the Democratic Party.

      1. You’re a braindead fuck if you think liberals were ever the segregationists.

        1. You’re a braindead fuck if you don’t think liberals were ever the segregationists.

          1. Oh really?

            Orval Faubus was as pink as any Democrat was in the 50’s. A documented fellow traveler with Communist connections. And I remember a little incident he was involved in at Little Rock High School in the 50’s, and he wasn’t on the integrationist side.

            Woodrow Wilson was Mr. Progressive for the Democrats, yet he was the one who completely reversed the progress Blacks had made under T. Roosevelt and Taft, and completely purged the Federal civil service of Blacks in white collar jobs.

            One of the foundations of the New Deal was the Davis Bacon prevailing wage law, with an overt goal of keeping Blacks from competing with White Union members for construction jobs.

            That’s just 3 examples, their are tons. The progressive wing of the Democrats was racist thru and thru.

        2. The left were the segregationists, and the fact that they stole the name “liberals” from the REAL liberals who fought Jim Crow doesn’t change that.

          1. Y’all are just so fucking brainwashed. I don’t know where y’all learned this shit.

            1. The Fabian socialists literally used a wolf in sheep’s clothing as their emblem, not making that up.

            2. You get all southern when you get racist. Weird

            3. Learned it from actual documents of the time. We dont need a biased text book to tell us the lies you believe. We still have the primary documents from the time. Democrats are race based assholes. They still are race based assholes who have now convinced minorities to self segragate. Sorry you’re fucking retarded OP.

            4. OP, if you want to see the kind of person who uses the state to obsess about race, separate people on that basis, and oppress those same people, you need only look in a mirror.

              Good people like the rest of us that you hate are fighting against your kind so we have real freedom.

              1. How’s that wingnut fight going? My assessment is that the liberal-libertarian alliance has been shoving progress down right-wing throats for more a half-century, with no reason to believe the conservatives are likely to turn the tide as America’s electorate changes for the better.

                You can whine and rant all you want, though, so long as you are obedient to the winners’ preferences.

                1. My assessment

                  Is still hicklib boilerplate.

                2. You cut and pasted that. You have about twelve things you say, and just repeat and maybe slightly rearrange them.

                  That’s just all kinds of lazy and unoriginal.

          2. Oh good heavens. The parties in the past were a lot more ideologically diverse. It is only recently that the Republican Party represents broadly “the right” and the Democratic Party represents broadly “the left”.

            In the past, you had:

            Democrats in the South, who were conservative and favored maintaining the traditional order
            Democrats in the North, who were radical bordering on socialist
            Republicans in the North, who were progressive (look up what Nelson Rockefeller did)
            Republicans in the West, who were very libertarian (that is where Goldwater came from)

            1. Now e have pedo loving open borders kooks.

              Like Pedo Jeffy.

        3. You’re a braindead fuck if you think liberals were ever the segregationists.

          Jim Crow wasn’t passed and enforced by conservatives.

          1. The modern Republican party was created by appealing to the southern racist fucks who abandoned the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Act. They were Democrats before because the Yankees were Republicans. Those Democrats were never fucking liberals. The KKK governor wannabe of Louisiana ran as a Republican and got close to 50% of the vote in the early 1990s. The entire “states rights” movement was in response to the Civil Rights Act. What fucking cave do you motherfuckers live in?. Yall must live in California or Washington State do be so fucking ignorant of southern history.

            1. Hey fucktard, stop believing the southern strategy lie. The south didnt switch until Clinton when the original facist Democrats in the south died off you ignorant fuck.

              1. The south didnt switch until Clinton when the original facist Democrats in the south died off

                The “switch” actually took place over a period of several decades, beginning with the early 1960s and the Draft Goldwater movement, and not reaching complete fruition until the Tea Party election of 2010, which wiped out almost all of the remaining Blue Dog Democrats in the South. And many of the Southern Democrats didn’t die off, but switched to the Republican Party in mid-career: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, and Richard Shelby, to name just a few of the most prominent.

              2. Oh, no, no, no. The South flipped with Reagan, because he made an effective case linking divinity with small government. This was a good thing, in my opinion. However, having lived most of my adult life in the South, I can say that the majority of white Southerners are the ultra-masters of revisionism. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, and you can only win points, and not an actual point, by citing the abolition opposition were Democrats. The national politic has shifted many times since then.

              3. The south didn’t switch until Clinton when the original facist Democrats in the south died off

                Really? How many Southern states voted for Humphrey, or McGovern, or Mondale, or Dukakis? Carter was from Georgia, so he was kind of a special case, but otherwise, the South has been pretty solidly Republican in national elections since 1968. Locally, yeah, “the original facist [sic] Democrats” got reelected until they died or retired. So yes, there was a “delayed reaction of a few decades”.

            2. The modern Republican party was created by appealing to the southern racist fucks who abandoned the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Act.

              Odd. The GOP didn’t actually “run” the South until well into the 90’s. Hell, didn’t have majorities in many state legislatures down here until the 2000’s. Must have been a delayed reaction of a few decades.

              They were Democrats before because the Yankees were Republicans.

              They were Democrats because the Democrats were always — still are, mind you — the pro slavery party. There is a history you cannot pretend doesn’t exist.

              The KKK governor wannabe of Louisiana ran as a Republican and got close to 50% of the vote in the early 1990s.

              38.83% is not “close” to 50% (that is what Duke got in the runoff) And Republicans quite openly and vocally went off on Duke because they cannot control WHO runs as a Republican — the party didn’t like Trump, either.

              The entire “states rights” movement was in response to the Civil Rights Act.

              The “state’s rights movement”, which led to the Civil War, was a response to an Act passed 100 years later? Intriguing.

              What fucking cave do you motherfuckers live in?.Yall must live in California or Washington State do be so fucking ignorant of southern history.

              It’s “y’all” (as in “you all”) but bless your heart for trying and failing so spectacularly.

            3. The KKK governor wannabe of Louisiana ran as a Republican and got close to 50% of the vote in the early 1990s

              To be a bit more precise, David Duke ran for the US Senate in 1990 as a Republican and got over 43% of the vote against a very well-entrenched, moderately conservative Democrat, J. Bennet Johnston. He then ran for governor a year later and got about 32% in the first round, and 39% in the runoff. So maybe a bit shy of “close to 50%,” but not at all to the credit of Louisiana voters.

          2. What does “conservatism” mean? It means to preserve the traditional order and that order was white power in the south. The KKK votes for Republicans. I guarantee you the proud racists know their history. They ‘know’ “the communist left wing yankee Jews were the ones agitating the blacks”. They ‘know’ what ‘liberal’ means unlike you sad fucks.

            1. You’ll never guess who David Duke is supporting these days

              1. Doesn’t matter. He’s repackaged it. It’s the same old bs. I’m sure it’s got something to do with Jews and Trump.

                1. Doesn’t matter. He’s repackaged it. It’s the same old bs. I’m sure it’s got something to do with Jews and Trump.

                  Duke runs a Republican even though Republicans all condemn him — proof of GOP ray-cism.
                  Duke supports a Jew hating Democrat — meh, nothing to see here.

                  1. OP is a lying hypocrite of the first order.

            2. What does “conservatism” mean? It means to preserve the traditional order and that order was white power in the south.

              Barry Goldwater would probably be shocked by this spicy take, but you do you.

              1. Probably the reason why Goldwater didn’t win. Nixon understood how to appeal to southern whites and the Republicans learned that lesson well after Goldwater.

                1. Probably the reason why Goldwater didn’t win

                  LOL, no.

                2. Conservatives didnt pick up the south under Nixon you ignorant fuck.

                3. in 1968, Nixon not only didn’t win ‘southern whites,’ he barely bothered campaigning there. Wallace won the Deep South. Nixon, meanwhile, had solid credentials re: civil rights, even supported an early affirmative action effort that started in Philly. That’s PA, by the way. How odd that blacks would need some remedy in a blue place.

                  1. in 1968, Nixon not only didn’t win ‘southern whites,’ he barely bothered campaigning there.

                    In 1968, Nixon carried seven southern states–Virginia, North and South Carolina, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri. He lost Texas by less than 40,000 votes, out of over 3 million cast.

                4. Probably the reason why Goldwater didn’t win. Nixon understood how to appeal to southern whites and the Republicans learned that lesson well after Goldwater.

                  Explains the Deep South not voting for him, doesn’t it? The results of that election aren’t that hard to look up, you know.

                  MS didn’t go Nixon. AL did not either. Not Georgia. Nor Louisiana. Not Arkansas.

                  Yet the South went Carter in 1976. Must be a Klansman, huh?

            3. What does “conservatism” mean? It means to preserve the traditional order and that order was white power in the south.

              So Democrats defending Obamacare are REALLY conservatives?

              This is your logic now?

        4. Oh, you mean white liberals are sending their kids to the diverse public schools instead of private schools or charters?

          1. Where I live the private schools were created in response to forced integration. The federal govt forced the state govt to dismantle segregation and it wasn’t long after the white kids abandoned the public schools in mass.

            1. Damn those people trying to make good choices for their children. Don’t they know that’s the government’s job?

            2. Where I live the private schools were created in response to forced integration. The federal govt forced the state govt to dismantle segregation and it wasn’t long after the white kids abandoned the public schools in mass.

              So how does that apply to white liberals keeping their kids out of diverse schools today? Busing hasn’t been an issue for well over 20 years now, and the policy was implemented in various municipalities well over 40 years ago.

              1. There are very few white liberals in the south. Maybe 15% of the white population.

                1. There are very few white liberals in the south. Maybe 15% of the white population

                  So why do white liberals in non-southern urban enclaves send their kids to private schools and charters rather than diverse public schools today?

                2. Yeah, those white Lefties are there to keep the black slaves in line.

                3. More info devoid of actual facts.

    2. Ordinary so upset that his Team Blue is the Party of slavery- The Democratic Party.

  6. Conservative majority declines to consider constitutional concerns of holding noncitizens without hearings.

    Well, before they were enemy combatants they were non-enemy non-combatants and the sneaky bastards you don’t know which side they’re on are the sneakiest bastards of all.

  7. So for everyone in the peanut gallery who are too lazy to actually read the opinions:
    The respondants DIDN’T challenge based on Constitutional grounds. The respondents only challenged the whether the statute was interpreted properly. And there is really no other way to read the statute than how the majority opinion described it. Any other reading would be torturing the language beyond recognition.

    Both the opinion written by Alito, and Kavanaugh’s concurrence both are clear that this is NOT a constitutional challenge. And that if someone wanted to challenge this law based on Constitutional grounds, it is still open to that.

    1. Don’t get me wrong. The fact that a legal resident alien could be deported due to drug possession is ridiculous. But that is not the question here. SCOTUS doesn’t (at least isn’t supposed to) go into grand philosophizing on every possible implication anytime something comes before them.

      1. Seems to me that the only contitutional question here is the indefinite detention part. So they would still be able to continue the same policy but after they rounded them up they would need to report them in a timely manner rather than let them lanquish in jail.

        1. Now if they want to appeal the deportation and stay in jail until the appeal process is over, which may be what is happening here, than that’s another story.

        2. I agree, the indefinite detention bit would appear to be a due process violation. Maybe speedy trial, too, though that technically only applies in criminal prosecutions, which a deportation hearing isn’t, and the courts have pretty much gutted it anyway.

          1. Well there’s a couple different justices so maybe they will revisit it. “Timely” though is relative, especially when you’re talking about the government. Not being held indefinitely it seems to me should apply across the board since the Constitution is designating that as a “right”, which would not imply caveats for different kinds of hearings.

  8. I think they were pretty clear about it: They’re only going to rule on what’s before them, and the plaintiffs made a statutory case where the statute was clearly against them.

    Somebody who raises the constitutional issues should have better luck. Even if the passage of time doesn’t change that they’re deportable, (No statute of limitations on deportation.) there’s got to be some defined limit on how long you can hold somebody before deciding whether to deport them.

    1. The liberal minority didn’t have any problem endorsing as narrow decision as possible on statuatory in NFIB in order to save it from getting to any constitutional issues.

      It seems their principles are a little flexible.

  9. Lock ’em up!

  10. A number of people here have commented on the amount of time they can be detained before deportation decisions. That wasn’t AT ALL even remotely a part of this case. The only time factor is the amount of time after being released from custody before being detained.

    The fact is, that the problem inherent in all of this, is what constitutes a crime. Most of us agree that consensual behavior among adults (i.e. sex, drugs, etc.) shouldn’t be criminal at all. So that is where the change should be made. However, if someone is a noncitizen and is convicted of rape, then it seems to me that the govt is well within its rights to deport that person.

    1. Of course it wasn’t part of the case, that’s why they lost: They only disputed a statutory question that was clearly against them, while the amount of time they can be detained before deportation is the Constitutional question they SHOULD have raised.

      Agreed, that there’s an unspoken question of too many things by far being made crimes, but I doubt the Court is ever going to treat that as a real constitutional issue.

    2. Actually Congress has defined quite well exactly what conduct qualifies for deportation of legal residents. That was another whole series of cases to exactly ferret out what state law convictions qualify for deportation.

  11. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

    >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://WWw.TheProCoin.CoM

  12. Reasonites, prepare for a week of reason articles screeching about this decision and the big win for Trump’s policy to enforce immigration law and protect the US borders.

    Normally I would add a ROFL, but the TDS that I can feel coming from Reason staffers everywhere is totally worth it.

    1. hey this is a libertarian site. Libertarians believe in the free movement of labor.

      I think you got lost on the way to the Daily Stormer and wheresthebirthcertificate . com. You’ll be able to “own the libs” there with your own kind there. Check it out.

      1. Yeah, and the free movement of labor doesn’t work when it fills a formerly white, individual liberty oriented nation with retarded socialistic mestizos from Latin America.

        1. The country you refer to never existed. Sorry you hate non-whites. Please don’t live near me or my family.

          1. Ooohhhh….. are you new? Or a sock of one of the usual progtards?

            1. You could do a little homework to figure out who I am. As for vice-versa, I don’t really care.

          2. I don’t hate non-whites. I just don’t think they’re particularly well suited for civilization.

            1. I think people who think this way are not well-suited for civilization. Fortunately, most Americans agree with me and always will.

        2. Bigoted, half-educated, backward, disaffected conservatives are among my favorite faux libertarians.

          Mainly because crushing them in the culture war has been so satisfying for the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

          1. If by crushing them you mean massing the liberal troops under the flag of post-birth infanticide, then you and your Jello-brained comrades are utter failures at all levels.

          2. Feel the hate flow through you.

      2. Hey Hayek, nothing wrong with sovereign borders. You sound like some anarachist with that bullshit.

      3. ” Libertarians believe in the free movement of labor.”

        Because Libertarians view humans as economic widgets.

  13. Trump should order the military to fire on these illegal invaders. Then they won’t be separated ever again. Mother and child will be forever united in the loving arms of Hay-Sus!

    1. what kind of trash says sh*t like that?

      1. I thought Hay-Sus’ eternal embrace were what these “hard working Catholic families” wanted?

        1. you should probably think about whether it’s worth going forward. sometimes, it’s not.

        2. you should probably think about whether it’s worth going forward. sometimes, it’s not.

      2. “what kind of trash says sh*t like that?”

        A progtard that is projecting.

        1. wow, i bet you “own the libs” on the regular, you white knight, you. Protard? Is that what they’re teaching for vocab at Suffolk Community Night school now?

          1. I could put a saddle on you and ride you like a pony. But I’ll leave that to Crusty when he decides you two are having date night.

    2. He should do as the law passed by Congress and President Clinton requires.

  14. This court is a pathetic caricature of justice.

    1. The 9th sure is.

  15. “”In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) warned about the significant consequences of such an extreme application of these statutes and argued that these statutes cannot be considered without exploring the constitutional implications:”””

    Something that crowed would never say regarding gun laws.

  16. I usually post comments on immigration on the side of the immigrants, but this isn’t clear. Undocumented immigrants who have subsequently committed crimes aren’t very high on the list of individuals needing protection from deportation. What we have here is a procedural problem, an overloaded system where the courts can’t process people in a reasonable period of time. I don’t think that is a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in upon.

  17. Supreme Court Gives Feds a Long Leash To Detain Immigrants With Criminal Records

    Seriously, would Shackford’s fingers catch fire and burn to stumps if he tried to type “illegal” immediately before “Immigrant”?

    1. Would it burn the eyes out of your skull to actually read a thing before commenting on it?

      1. Ooh, somebody is a little sensitive today.

        1. Also, many of us come here for the comments. Not the articles. Although I read this one. And by read, I mean skimmed. And by skimmed, I mean glanced at. And by glanced at, I mean imagined what might be in the article.

        2. Well the case clearly applies to legal immigrants, you could have at least read that part.

      2. The griping about immigration law enforcement I find to be tedious.

  18. When did it become popular to think Illegal immigrants were citizens?

    Granting them Constitutional rights and a limitless pool of subsidized ‘due process’ routes? They are in THE WRONG nation – no court, no rights, no subsidizing. They walked into this nation they can WALK themselves right back out!

    Open the door – put them on the other side of the border – DONE!!!!

    1. When Democrats needed votes to buy with allowing them to stay in the USA.

      The Democratic Party needs new slaves since Black Americans, Asians, and working Blue Collar Americans are leaving the Democratic party.

  19. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  20. This is a win for anyone opposed to legislation from the bench.

    One could certainly argue the law should be improved, but pulling new ideas not present in the plain text of the law out of thin air to enable those preferred policy preferences is a terrible way to go about it.

    Are there constitutional questions here? Don’t know, and I don’t believe that is what was being challenged. Clearly congress intended for immigration authorities to be able to detain criminal illegals. It would have been highly bizarre for the intent for there to be a 24-hour clock to detain after release. So bizarre that it would have been written into the bill if it truly was the intent.

    Again, fix flawed law through the legislative process NOT through the judiciary. The latter is a slippery slope to laws becoming meaningless.

    This is a win for Libertarians, even those who prefer open borders: anyone who wants laws to be laws and not simply social constructs interpreted dynamically by judges.

    1. Reason has gone postmodern “libertarianism”. The ruling is correct when it aligns with their preferences.

  21. As usual, the conservative opinions are specific and professional. The liberal counterpoints are vague, emotional, and unsupported by actual facts. At least Roberts didn’t fold this time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.