A Trump Administration win at the US Supreme Court

The ruling (5-4) from the US Supreme court today on the policy of the Trump administration for picking up non citizens convicted of crimes that spent time in local or state jails.

A win for Trump and United States Law.

Essentially the non citizens were saying if they were not picked up within a day of release, the government had to hold a hearing to see if you should be released. Ruling from the court means if you are not a citizen (illegal or green card holder), and you’ve done time in state or local jails . . . immigration can pick you up and hold you without a bond hearing until your deportation hearing.

Wonder when the Sanctuary cities will not stop reporting outcomes on criminal proceedings to the FBI so the feds won’t know when illegals are convicted.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a group of mostly green card holders argued that unless they’re picked up essentially within a day of being released, they should be entitled to a hearing where they can argue that they aren’t a danger to the community and are not likely to flee.

But the Supreme Court disagreed with the immigrants’ interpretation of federal law in a 5-4 ruling that divided the court along ideological lines. Looking at a statutory provision enacted by Congress in 1996, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “neither the statute’s text nor its structure” supported the immigrants’ argument.

Oh and I chose a lamestream media source for our liberal friends on the board.


Great news thanks!

Seems like a common sense ruling to me.

This part did stand out to me as well. It looks like the Trump administration continued the same argument as the Obama administration.

The court’s conservative justices sided with the Trump administration, which argued as the Obama administration did, against hearings for those convicted of crimes and affected by the law.

I’m curious what @Safiel has to say on this one?

It can be characterized as an Obama/Trump administration victory.

As for the opinion itself.

While 5 Justices concurred in the judgement, it is notable that there was no majority opinion of the Court. Justice Alito wrote a plurality opinion, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in part and by Roberts and Kavanaugh only for other parts. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Thomas wrote a concurrence joined by Gorsuch. Breyer wrote a dissent joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Clearly the 5 majority Justices believe the government is correct, but there is disagreement about how to get to the end result. Thomas would go so far as to say the plaintiffs had no standing to bring suit, while Alito favors a statutory interpretation.

I will have to digest this a bit more, quite a bit here.

1 Like

I’m not a fan of the government have the authority to detain people without judicial review.

1 Like

It sounded like common sense to me as well, why did 4 judges vote against :thinking:

I dont like the idea they can be detain forever…their should be a time limit…

I wouldnt call this a win…i wouldnt call it a lose either

I know it’s been said, but your contributions here are astounding. Thank you for what you bring to this community. I learn so much from you. I appreciate it greatly.

It seems to be quite a bit more complex than what the outcome overall suggests.

I would worry about your own laws in Canada.

I’m not a big fan of that law like I said I don’t agree with detention without judicial review, Canada does it by committee.

It might shock you but there are a lot of laws I don’t agree with in Canada.

They must do what they are told by Globalists.

Having had a chance to browse through the opinion and concurrences.

There was indeed 5 votes for Alito’s interpretation of the statute.

The portion of the opinion that was not joined by Thomas and Kavanaugh pertained to the issue of standing. Thomas would not have granted standing, but did agree with Alito’s interpretation of the statute. The other concurrence simply indicated that this opinion applies only to a very narrow group of plaintiffs.

1 Like

That would be those with a final deportation order correct?

I believe so.