Snowflake Lawyers Jammed Up Again By The SCOTUS

[Rightguide]

Times are hard for liberals and their misguided understanding of the Constitution and statutory law:

Supreme Court upholds ICE detention without bail for serious criminals

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Illegal immigrants with serious criminal records can be held without bail while awaiting deportation even if ICE didn’t immediately pick them up when they were released from prison or jail, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The 5-4 decision marked another rejection for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal panel that covers the country’s West Coast, and that has tested a number of legal theories on immigration law.

In this case, the 9th Circuit had ruled that under the law, if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately arrested someone released from a federal, state or local prison, they could be held without bond in the immigration detention system. But if ICE didn’t immediately arrest them, the migrants must be given a chance to make bond.

The case turned on a phrase in the law that says the no-bail determination applies to someone picked up by ICE “when the alien is released” from prison or jail.

The lower court ruled “when” must mean the day of release.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/19/supreme-court-upholds-ice-detention-without-bail-s/

Interesting were the concurring opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who said the lower courts shouldn’t have even gotten involved in the case because Congress has specifically precluded jurisdiction over these kinds of detention decisions.

This gets us back to the "political Question Doctrine" and the Congressional power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts.

 

[Rightguide]

Crybabies at CNN focused only on the Dissent and didn't mention the majority opinion.

 

[schism666]

you know that it's been proven several times that ice agents have illegally detained very innocent people including american serviceman.

 

[Que]

you know that it's been proven several times that ice agents have illegally detained very innocent people including american serviceman.

Back to "abolish ICE" again?

 

[schism666]

Back to "abolish ICE" again?

not there yet.

 

[Que]

not there yet.

You know, I stand corrected. You actually do leave off capitalization in order to give this one some differentiation.

I hadn't really noticed as much as I had on mackiemack because there you take it to ridiculous lengths by going to the trouble of increasing the font size and replacing your and you're with ur. It isn't handwriting, you should concentrate on them not all having the same goal and methods.

 

[Rightguide]

you know that it's been proven several times that ice agents have illegally detained very innocent people including american serviceman.

Is there a jurisdiction in the United States who hasn't arrested or prosecuted an innocent individual at one time or another? We are not perfect. This rulliing proves there are four people on the SCOTUS willing to make our system more imperfect by substituting their intent for the intent of Congress. From Justice Thomas with Gorsuch concurring:

At least three statutory provisions limit judicial review here, and I am skeptical whether the District Courts had Article III jurisdiction to certify the classes.

A

First, §1252(b)(9) bars judicial review of “all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States,” except for review of “a final order” or other circumstances not present here. These cases raise questions of law or fact arising from removal proceedings—“[d]etention is necessarily a part of [the] deportation procedure” that culminates in the removal of the alien, Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 538 (1952)—and they do not come to us on review of final orders of removal. Thus, for the reasons I set forth in Jennings, supra, at
___–___ (slip op., at 1–11), no court has jurisdiction over these class actions.

B

Second, §1226(e) provides that “[n]o court may set aside any action or decision by the [Secretary] under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.” (Emphasis added.) This provision “unequivocally deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to set aside ‘any action or decision’ by the [Secretary]” regarding detention, discretionary or otherwise. Demore v. Kim, 538 U. S. 510, 533 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see Jennings, supra, at ___, n. 6 (slip op., at 11, n. 6). The Court once again reads this language as permitting judicial review for challenges to the “statutory framework as a whole.” Ante, at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the text of the statute contains no such exception. Accordingly, I continue to think that no court has jurisdiction over these kinds of actions.

C

Third, §1252(f )(1) deprives district courts of “jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of [§§1221–1232] other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom
proceedings under [§§1221–1232] have been initiated.” The text of §1252(f )(1) explicitly prohibits the classwide injunctive relief ordered by the Northern District of California in this instance, given that the class includes future, yet-to-be detained aliens against whom proceedings have not been initiated. See Reno v. American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 481 (1999) (explaining that §1252(f )(1) “prohibits federal courts from granting classwide injunctive relief against the operation of §§1221–1231”). The District Court relied on Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F. 3d 1105 (CA9 2010), which held that this
provision does not affect authority to enjoin alleged violations of the specified statutes because those claims do not “seek to enjoin the operation of the immigration detention statutes, but to enjoin conduct . . . not authorized by the statutes.” Id., at 1120. This reasoning is circular and unpersuasive. Many claims seeking to enjoin or restrain the operation of the relevant statutes will allege that the Executive’s action does not comply with the statutory grant of authority, but the text clearly bars jurisdiction to enter an injunction [r]egardless of the nature of the action or claim.” Although the Court avoids deciding whether §1252(f )(1) prevented the District Court’s injunction here,
ante, at 8, I would hold that it did.

D

Finally, I harbor two concerns about whether the class actions were moot at the time of certification. First, as the Court recognizes, class actions are ordinarily “moot if no named class representative with an unexpired claim remain at the time of class certification.” United States v.Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 4); ante, at 9. At the time of class certification, all six of the named plaintiffs had received bond hearings or cancellation of removal. As I understand the plaintiffs’ arguments, that was the full relief that they sought: “individualized bond hearings where they may attempt to prove that their release would not create a risk of flight or danger to the public.” Motion for Class Certification in Preap v. Beers, No. 4:13–cv–5754 (ND Cal.), Doc. 8, p. 8; see Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief in Preap, supra, Doc. 1, p. 3 (seeking “immediate individualized bond hearings”); First Amended Class Action Complaint in Khoury v. Asher, No. 2:13–cv–1367 (WD Wash.), Doc. 19, p. 13 (requesting relief of “individualized bond hearings to all Plaintiffs”). The Court concludes that some of the named plaintiffs still faced the threat of rearrest and
mandatory detention at the time of class certification because the bond hearings that they received were provided as part of a preliminary injunction in a separate case that was later dissolved. But whether the plaintiffs actually faced that threat has not been addressed by the parties, and I question whether this future contingency was sufficiently imminent to support Article III jurisdiction. If the threat of rearrest and mandatory detention was
too speculative to support jurisdiction, I disagree with the Court that our jurisdiction would be saved by our precedent on transitory claims. Ante, at 9–10. We have held that a court has Article III jurisdiction to certify a class
action when the named plaintiffs’ claims have become moot if the claim is “so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s
individual interest expires.” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U. S. 388, 399 (1980). The “inherently transitory” exception is measured from the time that the complaint is filed to the court’s ruling on the motion for
class certification. See Genesis HealthCare Corp. v.Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 75–77 (2013). In other words, thenamed plaintiff ’s standing in a class action need not existthroughout the lifecycle of the entire lawsuit. Here, Members of the Court have recognized that aliens are held, onaverage, for one year, and sometimes longer. See Jennings, 583 U. S., at ___ (BREYER, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 3) (noting that detention for aliens is “often lengthy,” sometimes lasting years). I am not persuaded that the plaintiffs’ claims are so "inherently transitory” as to preclude a ruling on class certification, especially since both District Courts certified the classes here within a year ofthe filing of the complaints. Cf. County of Riverside v.McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 47, 52 (1991) (finding jurisdiction over a class action that challenged a county’s failureto provide “prompt” probable-cause hearings within the48-hour window for arraignments, as required by statelaw).

* * *
Because three statutes deprive courts of jurisdiction over respondents’ claims, I would have vacated the judgments below and remanded with instructions to dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction. But because the Court has held otherwise and I agree with the Court’s disposition of the merits, I concur in all but Parts II and III–B–2 of its opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/16-1363_a86c.pdf

 

[Rightguide]

Must be a lot of still speechless liberals out there.

 

[Luk]

Must be a lot of still speechless liberals out there.

ICE should be enforcing the law and not be partisan to a political party. This is the type of shit that divides the country. Just like when 45 errantly claims that the police, military, and bikers are on his side.

 

[Rightguide]

I wonder when the other shoe is going to drop and federal district court judges get their authority outside their districts reined in by the SCOTUS.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I thought that it was Liberals who looked to the SCOTUS to solve all the problems they could not get fixed legislatively...

 

[Rightguide]

I thought that it was Liberals who looked to the SCOTUS to solve all the problems they could not get fixed legislatively...

When you have federal courts exceeding their authority it takes either the SCOTUS to rein them in or the Congress. As we've seen in this case the courts were clearly exceeding their authority by hearing this case in violation of Congressional restrictions on their judicial review to do so.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I hate to point this out, but Congress had a chance to do something, but they hated Trump too much to give him anything, and I'm not talking about the Democrats here; they were clearly never going to go along...

 

[Rightguide]

I hate to point this out, but Congress had a chance to do something, but they hated Trump too much to give him anything, and I'm not talking about the Democrats here; they were clearly never going to go along...

True, but the reluctance of the Congress to support the President or his policy of enforcing "their" laws on immigration isn't my point, or the point of Justice Thomas and Gorsuch in the opinions I posted, who are lamenting the lower courts being in violation of existing congressional checks against their authority to certify the cases in the first place.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Immigrants were trying to find an out in a loophole and the SCOTUS only closed the hole.

 

[Rightguide]

Immigrants were trying to find an out in a loophole and the SCOTUS only closed the hole.

They need to close a few other holes as well.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I do everything I can to keep my hole covered...


...

 

[schism666]

I hate to point this out, but Congress had a chance to do something, but they hated Trump too much to give him anything, and I'm not talking about the Democrats here; they were clearly never going to go along...

republicans had full power to do whatever they wanted for years and chose to do nothing. it's too late now, give it a damn rest.

 

[Rightguide]

I do everything I can to keep my hole covered...


...

Oh I know, especially after hearing Luk is back.

 

[Rightguide]

republicans had full power to do whatever they wanted for years and chose to do nothing. it's too late now, give it a damn rest.

But not the required 60 votes in the Senate, so take a nap.

 

[SpeareChucker]

republicans had full power to do whatever they wanted for years and chose to do nothing. it's too late now, give it a damn rest.

Your hate seems to preclude you from reading for comprehension...

 

[Rightguide]

Your hate seems to preclude you from reading for comprehension...

Somewhere in his genetic code is a barking seal who doesn't want to perform for his mackerel.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Holy mackerel Batman!







[Makes me want to toot my horn!]

 

[Rightguide]

Holy mackerel Batman!







[Makes me want to toot my horn!]

Most of the time when he posts, he toots.