247 Local Media247 Local Media

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos

    December 8, 2022

    Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction

    October 31, 2022

    When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish

    September 27, 2022
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    • Home
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Subscribe
    • Home
    • Automotive
    • Business
    • CBD
    • Crypto
    • Education
    • Entertainment
    • Fashion
    • Finance
    • Health
    • Home Improvement
    • Law \ Legal
    • News
    • Shopping
    • Sports
    • Technology
    • Travel
    • Contact US
    247 Local Media247 Local Media
    Home»Law \ Legal»Justices reverse lower court rulings that ordered bond hearings for noncitizens in lengthy immigration detention
    Law \ Legal

    Justices reverse lower court rulings that ordered bond hearings for noncitizens in lengthy immigration detention

    By June 13, 2022No Comments3 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Justices reverse lower court rulings that ordered bond hearings for noncitizens in lengthy immigration detention
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
    Justices reverse lower court rulings that ordered bond hearings for noncitizens in lengthy immigration detention


    SCOTUS NEWS


    By Shalini Bhargava Ray

    on Jun 13, 2022
    at 12:21 pm

    In a pair of cases on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled against non-U.S. citizens who challenged their prolonged detention while they sought relief from deportation orders. 

    The first case, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, involved Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. without authorization and was ordered removed. Pursuant to the post-removal order statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the government detained him. Fearing persecution or torture in Mexico, Arteaga-Martinez then sought “withholding of removal,” which bars the government from removing a noncitizen to such a country. Claims for withholding of removal can take many months or even years to adjudicate.

    The question before the court was whether the post-removal order statute authorized his prolonged detention, and if so, whether the government was required to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge after six months of detention. In such a hearing, an immigration judge would consider the traditional bail hearing criteria of dangerousness and flight risk to determine whether a noncitizen should be released under federal supervision, in exchange for payment of a bond, pending resolution of the underlying immigration proceedings.

    In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that the text of the relevant statutory provision, Section 1231(a)(6), does not obligate the government to provide bond hearings after six months of detention. Seven other justices joined Sotomayor’s opinion in full. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part.

    The second case, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, consolidated two class actions and involved non-citizens similarly situated to Arteaga-Martinez. It raised the question of whether class members facing prolonged detention under the post-removal order statute were entitled to bond hearings. It raised the further question of whether another provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), barred the class-wide injunctive relief the district court had ordered.

    In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court held that the statute does bar class-wide injunctive relief, leaving open the possibility of injunctive relief for multiple named plaintiffs.

    Section 1252(f)(1), Alito wrote, “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.”

    Sotomayor (joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Breyer) filed an opinion partially concurring in the judgment and partially dissenting.

    Check back soon for in-depth analysis of the opinions.



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    The October term 2022 preview

    September 26, 2022

    The morning read for Monday, Sept. 26

    September 26, 2022

    In Maryland prison-assault case, a request to clarify an important procedural question

    September 23, 2022
    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Editors Picks
    Recent Posts
    • An Overview of Online Casinos vs Traditional Casinos
    • Types of Specialists for Erectile Dysfunction
    • When students’ basic needs are met by community schools, learning can flourish
    • Walmart and Target Are Hiring 140,000 Seasonal Workers
    • 7 Ways to Get Affordable Dental Care for Adults and Children
    Archives
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • September 2021
    Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest Vimeo YouTube
    • Home
    © 2022 - 247 Local Media- All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.