The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled, overturned a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that federal law does provide immigrants facing deportation bond hearings twice a year, according to an ABC News report. In this ruling the Court stopped short of deciding whether the Constitution requires a time frame for these hearings.
Defeat for Supporters of Immigrants’ Rights
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision had concluded the federal law imposed a procedural requirement of bond hearings every six months. During these bond hearings, the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the detention is necessary. The Circuit Court used a method of interpreting the applicable federal law known as constitutional avoidance. By doing so, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was able to make a decision without determining any constitutional issues.
SCOTUS did not make a constitutional determination, either. Instead, it remanded – or sent back – the case to the lower court. The lawsuit was brought by a class of immigrants who sought entrance at the U.S. border, many of whom sought asylum. Other immigrants involved in the lawsuit are lawful permanent residents fighting deportation based on commission of certain crimes.
The 9th Circuit is now tasked with determining the immigrants’ constitutional claims. The SCOTUS , ruling by a 5-3 vote, also instructed the lower court to determine whether or not the immigrants were able to pursue their legal action through a class action lawsuit.
Under the current law, these companies are not required to report problems such as traffic accidents to the state involving the autonomous vehicles.
To consult with an experienced immigration lawyer today, call 855-780-9986
Pro Immigrant Legal Help
(ABA) filed an amicus brief arguing that immigrants being held in detention should receive a bond hearing within a set period of time. The bond hearing’s purpose is to determine whether or not the detained immigrant poses a threat to society or is a flight risk. Arguing that the due process clause required a bright-line rule on the issue of bond hearings and their timing, the ABA recommended the SCOTUS adopt the 9th Circuit’s legal opinion.
The decision means that immigrants, including those who have permanent legal status, as well as asylum seekers, do not have a right to periodic bond hearings.
Implications for Immigrant Population
The most recent SCOTUS ruling has widespread implications. Put simply, the decision means that immigrants, including those who have permanent legal status, as well as asylum seekers, do not have a right to periodic bond hearings. Not surprisingly, the decision directly and adversely affects those immigrants who are presently appealing detentions by the federal government. Pro-immigrant groups characterize these detentions as somewhat indefinite. This is because it is not uncommon for immigrants to be detained for long periods, even if they are picked up for minor infractions. Statistics show that an immigrant’s average detainment is 13 months with some immigrants are being detained for even longer periods of time. According to immigrant advocates, many of these individuals have a right to be free on bail until their case is heard in court.
If you or someone you know is facing deportation or has any other immigration issue, call the experienced immigration attorneys at Bogin, Munns & Munns. Contact us today to schedule your immigration consultation.
NOTICE: The article above is not intended to serve as legal advice, and you should not rely on it as such. It is offered only as general information. You should consult with a duly licensed attorney regarding your Florida legal matter, as every situation is unique. Please know that merely reading this article, subscribing to this blog, or otherwise contacting Bogin, Munns & Munns does not establish an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Should you seek legal representation from Bogin, Munns & Munns, any such representation must first be agreed to by the firm and confirmed in a written agreement.