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

US Supreme Court Upholds Indefinite Detention of Immigrants

Carole Levine
March 25, 2019
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
MaxPixel.

March 19, 2019; Slate and Vox

Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled that immigrants with criminal convictions, no matter how minor the crime and no matter how long ago the conviction (and time served, and fines paid), can be detained indefinitely without any possibility of a bond hearing. The 5-4 decision in Nielsen v. Preap is a clear victory for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Based on a 1996 law, this statute allows immigration authorities to take into custody any immigrant, even immigrants with permanent residency status, who had committed certain criminal offenses “when” they were released from jail and hold them without bond for deportation. Writing for Slate, Mark Joseph Stern points out that, “It doesn’t matter if the immigrant was convicted a half-century ago and has fully rejoined his community; according to ICE, he remains subject to indefinite detention.”

“When” is not the only issue at play in this case, but it certainly puts the Supreme Court in a position of interpreting just what kind of time frame fits into that “when” scenario. Is it within six days of release? Six weeks? Six months? Six years? Or an indefinite time period?

And why no bond? Are these detainees flight risks when the government is detaining them in order to deport them? The suit Mony Preap brought was around the lack of bond, not around the rearrests and detention. Preap held a green card and has been a lawful permanent resident of this country since 1981. He sought relief from indefinite detention but knew he still might be deported.

What is also puzzling is the bypassing of a major constitutional question at the heart of this case. It was not raised by either side, but was acknowledged by both the conservative and the liberal justices as something that could and perhaps should come up as a future challenge to the court.

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.

The court’s liberals appear increasingly worried that the mandatory-detention law itself is unconstitutional. “I fear,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in a dissent for the Court’s four liberals, that Tuesday’s ruling “will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood”—principles that say that, as a rule, the government can’t detain anyone indefinitely without showing cause and that people who have served criminal sentences can’t be summarily reimprisoned for the same crime.

Those principles don’t hold in quite the same way when it comes to the immigration system—even though detention and deportation may seem as harsh as criminal punishments, they’re technically part of a civil system that doesn’t give the same protections to defendants. But as immigration enforcement has swelled in the 21st century, that’s started to seem to some like cognitive dissonance.

Even the conservative majority didn’t argue that mandatory detention as it exists is constitutional. Instead, it all but invited a challenge to the constitutionality of the law—even while using that law’s grammar to justify a policy that could result in detention of thousands more immigrants in the meantime.

There are many other things about this ruling that do not sit well. The offenses that might qualify under this law as “moral turpitude” and allow ICE grounds for arrest are the kinds of things that we often seize on among people of color but ignore among white citizens. There is an inequity in how we interpret just what is meant by these vaguely described crimes; even possession of a stolen bus transfer might qualify for mandatory detention.

In arguing for Preap, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) seemed to focus on the technicalities of the law and how it should be interpreted rather than raising the issue of the basic constitutionality of holding people without bond. If Congress is mandating that judges not release immigrants back into society, does this intimate that we are dealing with dangerous people? What kind of image of immigrants are we creating?

Clearly, this decision reinforces a multi-tiered system of rights and privileges in the US. If you are a citizen, you have certain entitlements and rights. But what if you are not? We have divided our nation in so many ways and segmented people by race and ethnicity, gender choices, socioeconomic status, and more. This decision by the Supreme Court in Nielsen v. Preap seems to widen those divisions. Many of us had hoped for better.—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 Court undocumented immigrantsImmigrationNonprofit NewsPolicySCOTUS Decisions & The Aftermath

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

Spring-2023-sidebar-subscribe
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

NPQ Webinars

April 27th, 2 pm ET

Liberatory Decision-Making

How to Facilitate and Engage in Healthy Decision-making Processes

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.

NPQ-Spring-2023-cover

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.