From Breitbart to Backroads
White House Was Locked Down Today. Here's What Happened.
A Dying Barney Frank Delivered a Stark Warning to Dems Over the Weekend
School Hired Registered Sex Offender, Then He Assaulted a 10-Year-Old Girl
So This Is Why Tim Walz Backs Graham Platner
CNN Allows a Dem Candidate to Defy Her Autobiography, and 60 Minutes Attacks...
While Crime and Islamism Run Wild in the UK, Authorities Crack Down on...
Guess Why Rolling Stone Knocked Eric Clapton Out of the Top Ten Guitarists...
Real Problems With Novelty Signs and Talking Tough About Trespassers
Guys, Its Just a Ballroom: Progressive Podcaster Says That Trump's Ballroom Will Be...
A Lesson on Capitalism: Kevin O'Leary Explains Why the End of Spirit Airlines...
Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Meet With the Pope This Week Amid...
This University in Texas Says They're Still Peddling DEI
Wait, a Judge Did What to the Guy Who Tried to Assassinate Trump?
Todd Blanche Just Gave a Huge Update in the Case Against James Comey
Tipsheet

SCOTUS: Repeat Illegal Immigrants Ineligible for Bond While Fighting Deportation

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