logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

Supreme Court Hears First Immigration Case after Kavanaugh Seating

Carole Levine
October 12, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print

October 11, 2018; Los Angeles Times, AP News, and The Atlantic

With the addition of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a full nine justices heard arguments this week in a case that could determine the fate of thousands of immigrants, many of whom entered the country legally and have been raising families and contributing to the US for years. Many now face years of incarceration and certain deportation. And the crux of the case is in how the Court interprets the word “when” as written into law.

In this case, Nielsen v. Preap, three lawful permanent residents filed a class action suit when they were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detained without bond hearings years after they had been released from serving criminal sentences for offenses that could lead to their removal. Their position was that they were not detained “when” released from criminal custody, and so should not be held in mandatory detention and should be provided with a bond hearing as well. In an article for the Atlantic, Garrett Epps explains the issues in the lawsuit quite clearly:

The statute creates two classes of “removable” aliens: first, ordinary detainees who haven’t committed crimes but are facing removal on other grounds and, second, “criminal aliens” facing removal because of criminal convictions.

Once ordinary aliens are detained for removal, they face three different legal tests. First will be a “bond hearing,” at which they can try to convince an immigration judge that they can be safely released, and will show up for their deportation hearing. They can provide evidence of their community, and family members can attend to give their support. If they get bond, they can go back to their lives until their next hearing. Next, whether or not they get bond, they receive a “removal hearing,” at which they can try to show that they are not “removable” after all. If they win there, they are free to go. But even if they fail in that effort, they can still try to show that they are eligible for what is called “cancellation of removal”—for example, because they have been lawfully present in the U.S. for years and have family ties here, or because deportation would subject them to danger in their country of origin. If the immigrant can prove that claim, immigration authorities have the discretion to allow him or her to remain and “adjust” to legal status.

But go back to the beginning—the bond hearing. Some “criminal aliens” have been convicted of certain specified statutory crimes (such as drug or firearms offenses, sex offenses, terrorism or espionage, or crimes of “moral turpitude”). For this “criminal alien” group, the statute says that “when the alien is released” from imprisonment, the government “shall take [him or her] into custody.” These immigrants get no bond hearing; they must be held in detention until their cases are resolved. They can still challenge removal, and they can still ask for cancellation, but they must remain behind bars for the months or even years those proceedings can take.

The “when” comes into play in this case because the plaintiffs had all served time in prison for minor offenses but were not taken into custody for deportation upon release. The issue here is whether or not the word “when” includes anytime thereafter. Thus, the Supreme Court must now decide the meaning of “when” in “when they are released.” And from the questions and debate in the court this week, the answer may not bode well for lawful immigrants.

The justices seemed to split along ideological lines, with the conservatives, including newly seated Justice Kavanaugh, clearly siding with the government’s position that “when” was open to almost any time—to place a time limitation on it was to hinder the ability of immigration authorities to do their work. Both Trump appointees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, were clear in their sense that Congress did not put a time limit on the law. Sparring with the ACLU lawyer, Kavanaugh staked out his position.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Kavanaugh disputed the ACLU’s contention that this mandatory detention rule applies only to immigrants who can be detained at the time they are being released from local jails or state prisons, not to those released years ago. “Congress did not put in a time limit,” he said. “That raises a real question with me whether we should be superposing a time limit.”

ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang pointed to the words of the law. “We’re not asking you to superimpose a time limit. We’re asking you to give meaning to all the words of the statute. “Congress in saying ‘when’ meant what ‘when’ means in the common sense, within a reasonable time.”

Wang said a reasonable time would be one day, but several justices said that time limit was too short.

However, Kavanaugh went further and said he saw no basis for putting any time limit on arresting immigrants for past crimes. “My point is that’s very odd when you think what Congress was doing in 1996…What was really going through Congress’s mind in 1996 was harshness on this topic,” he said.

The ACLU lawyer argued she was not arguing that the detained immigrants had a right to go free. She said they should have hearing for a judge to decide whether they were dangerous or likely to flee.

“The problem is Congress did not trust those hearings,” Kavanaugh said. “For a certain class of criminal or terrorist aliens, [Congress] said, ‘No more’.”

Arguing for the liberals on the court, Justice Breyer raised the question of whether it was the intent of Congress for the government to do this kind of “roundup” of immigrants: “There is a huge constitutional question over whether people in the United States can be arrested and held indefinitely with no hearing. The Constitution says that “no person” shall be “deprived of liberty…without due process of law,” Breyer said, and that clause also applies to immigrants living here. He also noted that even an ax-murderer was entitled to a bond hearing, and these people were not.

The issue of “when” to take an immigrant into custody seems pedantic when you are going to hold without bond a grandfather who has lived in the US for 52 years, or a person who served a prison sentence for possession of marijuana 20 years ago in the same way you would someone who participated in a bank robbery or was a suspect in a murder or assault. But it may all come down to an interpretation of what one word means. And, just when will we know this? Only the nine justices of the Supreme Court can answer that.—Carole Levine

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Carole Levine

Carole Levine is a principal consultant at Levine Partners, providing consulting services to small and medium-sized nonprofit organizations. She has held senior management positions in four national nonprofits: The National PTA (Deputy Executive Director); Communities in Schools (Vice President of Expansion and Technical Assistance); The Family Resource Coalition (Director of Technical Assistance); and National Lekotek Center (Director of Development). Carole holds a BA in education and political science from Washington University, and an M.Ed. in Early Childhood Leadership and Advocacy from National Louis University. Carole has served on the boards of numerous organizations, holding national positions on the board of National Council of Jewish Women and on the International Council of Jewish Women. She is currently the Chair of Courts Matter Illinois, serves on the board of Chicago Women Take Action and is active on the Promote the Vote Illinois Coalition. Carole is passionate about purposeful work, justice for all, advocacy and her family (which includes 6 amazing grandchildren!).

More about: Supreme CourtImmigrationNonprofit NewsPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

NPQ_Winter_2022Subscribe Today
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of Housing Insecurity for Black Women
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn
The Human Impact of the Global Refugee Crisis Must Be Understood—And Acted Upon
Anmol Irfan
Black Americans Need Reparations: The Fight for the CTC Highlights the Roadblocks
Jhumpa Bhattacharya and Trevor Smith
I Was Arrested For Protesting Racial Injustice—and Nearly Deported
Máxima Guerrero

Popular Webinars

Remaking the Economy

Black Food Sovereignty, Community Stories

Register Now

Combating Disinformation and Misinformation in 21st-Century Social Movements

Register Now

Remaking the Economy

Closing the Racial Wealth Gap

Register Now
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of...
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.