Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult to Challenge Immigration Policies

June 13, 2022 by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult to Challenge Immigration Policies
Migrants walk on the highway toward the exit to Huixtla, Chiapas state, Mexico, early Thursday, June 9, 2022. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)

WASHINGTON — In a pair of rulings on Monday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for illegal immigrants to challenge U.S. policies directed at them in court.

In the first case, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, a unanimous court ruled that immigrants do not have a right to bond hearings when the government can show they are a flight risk.

In the second case, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, a 6-3 ruling, a majority of justices held that district courts lack the authority to order the government to provide such hearings on a class-wide basis.

The Johnson ruling, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, overturned rulings of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, and 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Both appellate courts had relied on a 2001 ruling by the Supreme Court that said the Constitution usually does not allow the government to hold immigrants more than six months without giving them a hearing and a chance to seek their release on bond.

But Sotomayor wrote that the statute the petitioner cited to make his case “says nothing about bond hearings before immigration judges or burdens of proof, nor does it provide any other indication that such procedures are required.”

“Faithfully applying our precedent, the court can no more discern such requirements from the text of [the statute] than a periodic bond hearing requirement from the text [of another statute] than a periodic bond hearing requirement from the text of §1226(a).

“Section 1231(a)(6) therefore cannot be read to incorporate the procedures imposed by the courts below as a matter of textual command,” Sotomayor said.

She went on to say that because the appellate courts agreed with Arteaga-Martinez’s claim that the statute required a bond hearing, they failed to address his constitutional claims.

The justices remanded the cases back to those courts to consider those claims.

In the second ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority held that challenges to immigration must be brought individually and not on a class-wide basis.

Alito concludes that under a 1996 statute, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, lower federal courts lack the power to grant injunctive relief to entire classes of immigrants that would bar immigration officials from carrying out certain policies.

According to Alito the language in the relevant laws “generally” prohibit lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials “to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”

Sotomayor wrote a partial dissent, joined in part by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

In it, she said, the majority opinion “elevates piecemeal dictionary definitions and policy concerns over plain meaning and context.”

“I respectfully dissent from the court’s blinkered analysis, which will leave many vulnerable noncitizens unable to protect their rights,” she wrote.

Sotomayor, however, saw a few rays of sunshine peeking through the gloomy nature of the majority ruling.

“In fairness, the court’s decision is not without limits,” she wrote. “For instance, the court does not purport to hold that §1252(f)(1) affects courts’ ability to ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions’ under the Administrative Procedure Act. No such claim is raised here.

“In addition, the court rightly does not embrace the government’s eleventh-hour suggestion at oral argument to hold that §1252(f)(1) bars even class-wide declaratory relief, a suggestion that would (if accepted) leave many noncitizens with no practical remedy whatsoever against clear violations by the Executive Branch.

“Even with these limits, however, the repercussions of today’s decision will be grave,” Sotomayor concluded. “In view of the text and context of §1252(f)(1), these repercussions offer yet more evidence that the court’s interpretive effort has gone badly astray.

“The essence of statutory interpretation is to review the plain meaning of a provision in its context. The court’s analysis, by violating several interpretive principles, ultimately fails in that endeavor. I respectfully dissent,” she concluded.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and at https://twitter.com/DanMcCue.

A+
a-
  • bond hearings
  • Immigration
  • migrants
  • Samuel Alito
  • Sonia Sotomayor
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Immigration

    May 3, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    White House Expands Health Care Coverage to DACA Recipients

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Friday expanded access to Affordable Care Act coverage to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Friday expanded access to Affordable Care Act coverage to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. Starting in November, DACA recipients — individuals who were brought into the U.S. illegally as children by a parent or other adult, known as “Dreamers”... Read More

    Trump Called This Visa 'Very Bad' for Americans. Truth Social Applied for One

    MIAMI (AP) — The social media company founded by former President Donald Trump applied for a business visa program that he sought to... Read More

    MIAMI (AP) — The social media company founded by former President Donald Trump applied for a business visa program that he sought to restrict during his administration and which many of his allies want him to curtail in a potential second term. Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind... Read More

    Many Americans Say Immigrants Contribute to Economy but There's Worry Over Risks, AP-NORC Poll Finds

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are more worried about legal immigrants committing crimes in the U.S. than they were a few... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are more worried about legal immigrants committing crimes in the U.S. than they were a few years ago, a change driven largely by increased concern among Republicans, while Democrats continue to see a broad range of benefits from immigration, a new poll... Read More

    March 19, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Gives Texas Green Light to Deport Illegal Immigrants

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials... Read More

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials to deport undocumented immigrants, despite objections from the Biden administration, which argued only the federal government has authority over immigration issues. In an unsigned order, the... Read More

    CDC Team Joins Response to Seven Measles Cases in Chicago Shelter for Migrants

    CHICAGO (AP) — Seven people living at a Chicago shelter for migrants have tested positive for measles since last week,... Read More

    CHICAGO (AP) — Seven people living at a Chicago shelter for migrants have tested positive for measles since last week, prompting the arrival of a team with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to guide city and state officials' response to the infections, including vaccination... Read More

    Supreme Court Allows Federal Agents to Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed on US-Mexico Border

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting for now razor wire that... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting for now razor wire that Texas installed along a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border that is at the center of an escalating standoff between the Biden administration and the state over immigration enforcement. The... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top