"The Guardian" or "Authority of Law" statue by James Earle Frasier in front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Mark Fischer Flickr)
Mar 19, 2019
A Supreme Court ruling Tuesday stating undocumented immigrants with criminal records can be detained indefinitely by U.S. authorities at any time after an initial arrest--even years later--generated outrage and disappointment from advocacy groups around the country.
The case, Nielsen v. Preap, was decided by a majority of 5-4. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the suit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to the Supreme Court in October 2018.
The case rested on whether or not the government can detain immigrants convicted of crimes at any time after their sentences and for any amount of time.
A law passed by Congress in 1996 allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants after their sentence was served, but that law had largely, until now, been interpreted as only applying immediately after sentencing. Tuesday's ruling means that application parameter no longer exists.
"For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge," Cecilia Wang, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system."
Wang argued the case in front of the judges.
\u201cWe've lost a valiant battle in Nielsen v. Preap today. Two terms in a row now, #SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the most extreme interpretation of the mandatory immigration detention statute - which results in detention without any individualized hearing on flight risk or danger.\u201d— Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb (@Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb) 1553006799
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, joined by justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas. The quintet are considered the court's conservative block.
The liberal minority of Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and Elena Kagan was represented in a dissent by Breyer which asked if Congress "meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing."
"This is terrible news," said Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern.
\u201cOof. This is terrible news. SCOTUS rules 5\u20134 that ICE may arrest and detain an unauthorized immigrant *indefinitely* once he has been taken into criminal custody. Doesn't matter if he was released from custody months or even years ago. \nhttps://t.co/Ldw7cr9phY\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1553004759
In a late February piece for Slate, Stern argued that the court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, where the court sent a case involving indefinite detention of immigrants back to lower courts, indicated the new majority was prepared to strip immigrants of Constitutional protections.
We should all be concerned that Breyer found it necessary to explain these first principles to the court. So many rights flow from the Due Process Clause's liberty component: not just the right to be free from arbitrary detention and degrading treatment, but also the right to bodily integrity and to equal dignity. Should the court rule that undocumented immigrants lack these basic liberties, what's to stop the government from torturing them, executing them, or keeping them imprisoned forever?
That's what happened on Tuesday, Scott Hechinger, senior attorney and director of policy at Brooklyn Defender Services, said on social media: the majority ruled "in favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants."
\u201c\u201cLast term Justice Breyer warned us that SCOTUS' conservatives want to strip immigrants of their constitutional rights.\u201d Today he was proven right. He read his dissent from bench. But the majority including Trump\u2019s 2 picks ruled: In favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1553011051
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
\u201cThis ruling stands as a major setback for civil liberties but the battle isn\u2019t over. We urge Congress to repeal the 1996 mandatory detention law, an anomaly to our legal system that runs counter to our shared ideals, and to protect the right to due process for us all.\u201d— Asian Law Caucus (@Asian Law Caucus) 1553005501
Despite the setback, the ACLU's Wang promised that the organization would continue bringing cases like Preap to the court.
"We will never give up fighting against the senseless mass incarceration without a hearing," said Wang.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A Supreme Court ruling Tuesday stating undocumented immigrants with criminal records can be detained indefinitely by U.S. authorities at any time after an initial arrest--even years later--generated outrage and disappointment from advocacy groups around the country.
The case, Nielsen v. Preap, was decided by a majority of 5-4. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the suit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to the Supreme Court in October 2018.
The case rested on whether or not the government can detain immigrants convicted of crimes at any time after their sentences and for any amount of time.
A law passed by Congress in 1996 allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants after their sentence was served, but that law had largely, until now, been interpreted as only applying immediately after sentencing. Tuesday's ruling means that application parameter no longer exists.
"For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge," Cecilia Wang, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system."
Wang argued the case in front of the judges.
\u201cWe've lost a valiant battle in Nielsen v. Preap today. Two terms in a row now, #SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the most extreme interpretation of the mandatory immigration detention statute - which results in detention without any individualized hearing on flight risk or danger.\u201d— Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb (@Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb) 1553006799
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, joined by justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas. The quintet are considered the court's conservative block.
The liberal minority of Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and Elena Kagan was represented in a dissent by Breyer which asked if Congress "meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing."
"This is terrible news," said Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern.
\u201cOof. This is terrible news. SCOTUS rules 5\u20134 that ICE may arrest and detain an unauthorized immigrant *indefinitely* once he has been taken into criminal custody. Doesn't matter if he was released from custody months or even years ago. \nhttps://t.co/Ldw7cr9phY\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1553004759
In a late February piece for Slate, Stern argued that the court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, where the court sent a case involving indefinite detention of immigrants back to lower courts, indicated the new majority was prepared to strip immigrants of Constitutional protections.
We should all be concerned that Breyer found it necessary to explain these first principles to the court. So many rights flow from the Due Process Clause's liberty component: not just the right to be free from arbitrary detention and degrading treatment, but also the right to bodily integrity and to equal dignity. Should the court rule that undocumented immigrants lack these basic liberties, what's to stop the government from torturing them, executing them, or keeping them imprisoned forever?
That's what happened on Tuesday, Scott Hechinger, senior attorney and director of policy at Brooklyn Defender Services, said on social media: the majority ruled "in favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants."
\u201c\u201cLast term Justice Breyer warned us that SCOTUS' conservatives want to strip immigrants of their constitutional rights.\u201d Today he was proven right. He read his dissent from bench. But the majority including Trump\u2019s 2 picks ruled: In favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1553011051
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
\u201cThis ruling stands as a major setback for civil liberties but the battle isn\u2019t over. We urge Congress to repeal the 1996 mandatory detention law, an anomaly to our legal system that runs counter to our shared ideals, and to protect the right to due process for us all.\u201d— Asian Law Caucus (@Asian Law Caucus) 1553005501
Despite the setback, the ACLU's Wang promised that the organization would continue bringing cases like Preap to the court.
"We will never give up fighting against the senseless mass incarceration without a hearing," said Wang.
A Supreme Court ruling Tuesday stating undocumented immigrants with criminal records can be detained indefinitely by U.S. authorities at any time after an initial arrest--even years later--generated outrage and disappointment from advocacy groups around the country.
The case, Nielsen v. Preap, was decided by a majority of 5-4. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the suit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to the Supreme Court in October 2018.
The case rested on whether or not the government can detain immigrants convicted of crimes at any time after their sentences and for any amount of time.
A law passed by Congress in 1996 allowed for the detention of undocumented immigrants after their sentence was served, but that law had largely, until now, been interpreted as only applying immediately after sentencing. Tuesday's ruling means that application parameter no longer exists.
"For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge," Cecilia Wang, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system."
Wang argued the case in front of the judges.
\u201cWe've lost a valiant battle in Nielsen v. Preap today. Two terms in a row now, #SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the most extreme interpretation of the mandatory immigration detention statute - which results in detention without any individualized hearing on flight risk or danger.\u201d— Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb (@Cecillia Wang \u738b\u5fb7\u68fb) 1553006799
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, joined by justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas. The quintet are considered the court's conservative block.
The liberal minority of Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and Elena Kagan was represented in a dissent by Breyer which asked if Congress "meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing."
"This is terrible news," said Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern.
\u201cOof. This is terrible news. SCOTUS rules 5\u20134 that ICE may arrest and detain an unauthorized immigrant *indefinitely* once he has been taken into criminal custody. Doesn't matter if he was released from custody months or even years ago. \nhttps://t.co/Ldw7cr9phY\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1553004759
In a late February piece for Slate, Stern argued that the court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, where the court sent a case involving indefinite detention of immigrants back to lower courts, indicated the new majority was prepared to strip immigrants of Constitutional protections.
We should all be concerned that Breyer found it necessary to explain these first principles to the court. So many rights flow from the Due Process Clause's liberty component: not just the right to be free from arbitrary detention and degrading treatment, but also the right to bodily integrity and to equal dignity. Should the court rule that undocumented immigrants lack these basic liberties, what's to stop the government from torturing them, executing them, or keeping them imprisoned forever?
That's what happened on Tuesday, Scott Hechinger, senior attorney and director of policy at Brooklyn Defender Services, said on social media: the majority ruled "in favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants."
\u201c\u201cLast term Justice Breyer warned us that SCOTUS' conservatives want to strip immigrants of their constitutional rights.\u201d Today he was proven right. He read his dissent from bench. But the majority including Trump\u2019s 2 picks ruled: In favor of *indefinite detention* for immigrants.\u201d— Scott Hechinger (@Scott Hechinger) 1553011051
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
\u201cThis ruling stands as a major setback for civil liberties but the battle isn\u2019t over. We urge Congress to repeal the 1996 mandatory detention law, an anomaly to our legal system that runs counter to our shared ideals, and to protect the right to due process for us all.\u201d— Asian Law Caucus (@Asian Law Caucus) 1553005501
Despite the setback, the ACLU's Wang promised that the organization would continue bringing cases like Preap to the court.
"We will never give up fighting against the senseless mass incarceration without a hearing," said Wang.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.