Trump's Letter to Norway's Prime Minister About the Nobel Prize Greenland Is...Something
Here's Where This Segment on Fox News Sunday About ICE Operations in MN...
Five Software Engineers Went Out for Lunch in Minneapolis. Then, This Happened.
Katie Pavlich's Show on NewsNation Starts Tonight...and She Has a HUGE Guest This...
Trump Rails Against Ilhan Omar, Says She Should Be Imprisoned
Iranian President Is Now Threatening the US
Ah, So That's Why Kamala Harris Didn't Choose Josh Shapiro As Her Running...
The Netherlands Trying Integrating Migrants by Housing Them With Dutch Students. Guess Wha...
Goodbye, Kathleen Kennedy. You Won't Be Missed.
'You Didn't Build That:' Wealthy Journo Thinks California Is Entitled to Steal Billionaire...
This Amateur Hockey Player Died on the Ice. What He Saw Changed His...
Accurately Understanding King Jr.
ICE Confronts Protesters Protecting Child Sex Offender As Violence Escalates in Minnesota
You Won't Believe What Ilhan Omar Called the United States
Josh Shapiro Claims Harris Team Fixated on Israel, Questioned If He Was an...
Tipsheet

SCOTUS: Repeat Illegal Immigrants Ineligible for Bond While Fighting Deportation

AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza

In a decision announced Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against a subset of illegal immigrants on the question of whether they are entitled to bond hearings while fighting deportation, reversing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advertisement

The majority opinion in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez — a narrow case questioning whether previously deported individuals who reenter the United States illegally over fears of torture in their home country must be detained while their second removal proceedings take place — was authored by Justice Samuel Alito. He was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez dealt with two provisions authorizing authorities to detail illegal immigrants while remove proceedings take place: 8 U.S.C. §1226 and 8 U.S.C. §1231 and which one applied to illegal aliens who were deported once but returned illegally a second time. "If the answer is §1226, which applies 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States,' then the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge," Alito writes. "If the answer is §1231, which applies after the alien is 'ordered removed,' then the alien is not entitled to a bond hearing."

"We conclude that §1231, not §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of removal."

Advertisement

Related:

DEPORTATION

Among other issues outlined in his opinion, Alito found respondents' arguments "would undermine Congress's judgment regarding the detention of different groups of aliens who posed different risks of flight." As the syllabus for the case explains, "Aliens who have not been ordered removed are less likely to abscond because they have a chance of being found admissible, while aliens who have already been ordered removed are generally inadmissible... and have already demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order."

In layman's terms, those who have already been deported from the United States and return illegally a second time are more likely to disappear if released on bond.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement