How Graham Platner's Campaign Is Trying to Do Damage Control After Nazi Tattoo...
Even CNN Is Calling Out Dems Over This Lie About Trump's White House...
Is This the Most Insane Reaction to President Trump's East Wing Project
LOL: The White House Did Not Include *This* on Their Website. It's Classic...
Bernie Sanders Just Broke With His Party Over This Trump Policy
Oh, Look Who Donated to Trump's White House Renovation Project
What Could Go Wrong? Scientists May Have Found a Real-Life Jurassic Park Starter...
The Press Trips Over Themselves to Defend a Prosecutor, and Trump's Ballroom Project...
Democrats Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel for Candidates
The Empire Strikes Back: Trump vs Venezuela, Columbia, Antifa, and Illegals
What Charlie Kirk Understood About America’s Lost Youth
Abigail Spanberger, As Governor, You’re Supposed to Make Decisions
While Washington Imports Price Controls, China Imports Our Future
Kentucky Waste Industry Mogul Promises to 'Take Out the Trash' in Washington DC
Pakistani National Sentenced to 40 Years for Smuggling Cruise Missiles, Warhead
Tipsheet

SCOTUS: Repeat Illegal Immigrants Ineligible for Bond While Fighting Deportation

AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza

In a decision announced Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against a subset of illegal immigrants on the question of whether they are entitled to bond hearings while fighting deportation, reversing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advertisement

The majority opinion in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez — a narrow case questioning whether previously deported individuals who reenter the United States illegally over fears of torture in their home country must be detained while their second removal proceedings take place — was authored by Justice Samuel Alito. He was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.

Johnson v. Guzman Chavez dealt with two provisions authorizing authorities to detail illegal immigrants while remove proceedings take place: 8 U.S.C. §1226 and 8 U.S.C. §1231 and which one applied to illegal aliens who were deported once but returned illegally a second time. "If the answer is §1226, which applies 'pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States,' then the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge," Alito writes. "If the answer is §1231, which applies after the alien is 'ordered removed,' then the alien is not entitled to a bond hearing."

"We conclude that §1231, not §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of removal."

Advertisement

Among other issues outlined in his opinion, Alito found respondents' arguments "would undermine Congress's judgment regarding the detention of different groups of aliens who posed different risks of flight." As the syllabus for the case explains, "Aliens who have not been ordered removed are less likely to abscond because they have a chance of being found admissible, while aliens who have already been ordered removed are generally inadmissible... and have already demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order."

In layman's terms, those who have already been deported from the United States and return illegally a second time are more likely to disappear if released on bond.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement