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.
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.
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.