The case focused on whether detention without hearing should take place immediately after the immigrant was released from detention or could happen months or even years later when the person moved to the community. The status simply states that detention may occur "when the alien is released" from the arrest.
The court voted 5-4 in favor of the government.
Dispute has been filed by lawful permanent residents who have committed a crime that may lead to their removal.
According to him, Judge Samuel Aliito said immigrants in this case claimed to have been "hearing on bonds" to argue for their release. Alito says the law does not support their argument
Justice Brett Cavana writes separately that the decision is entirely based on the language of the law. He said it would be "strange" to interpret the status as a requirement to detain some "deaf people" who pose a serious risk of escape but still allow them to remain free during the removal process, if the executive failed. "to detain them immediately after their release from detention."
"The Court rightly considers that the detention of the executive power of the particular non-citizens here remains compulsory, although the executive has not immediately detained them."
Stephen Breyer writes about the disagreement and makes an unusual step to read the bench. Judges Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sottomayor joined him. whom the government has retained as one of the oldest and most important of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms: the right not to be imprisoned without proper trial. "
Breyer said" more "is the case than the" technical meaning of the words "in the immigration status. He said that "the greater importance of the case lies in the power," which the opinion of the majority provides to the government. "And it's a force to hold these faces, perhaps for many months, without the possibility of getting a guarantee."
Opinion comes when the government has embarked on a solid line across the board to implement immigration laws. While it is difficult to know the exact number of people who will be affected by the decision, the lower court indicated that the government each day holds about 30,000 immigrants while determining whether they should be removed from the country.
A court panel of the 9th US Appellate Court ruled that in 201
Other courts split up on the issue.
The named applicant, Moni Preap, was born in a refugee camp after his family escaped from the Khmer Rouge from Cambodia. He arrived as a baby in 1981 and was convicted twice in 2006 of possession of marijuana. Years after his release, he was transferred to immigration detention after a short sentence about a simple battery, a crime that did not cause a forced arrest.
Preap's lawyers in the American Civil Liberties Union claim that, according to the government's interpretation of the law, those who could prove to the immigration judge that they do not pose a flight risk would be detained for " months or even years. "
After all, Preap was released from immigration detention, but he remains a leading claimant for a class of others with similar complaints.