SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"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)
'Terrible News': US Supreme Court Rules for Indefinite Detention of Immigrants
"A major setback for civil liberties."
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.
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.
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."
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
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.
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."
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
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.
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.
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."
The ruling was "a major setback for civil liberties," said the Asian Law Caucus, "but the battle isn't over."
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.