Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigrant detention a win for prez

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court may not yet be ready to wade into the legal challenge over the DACA program, but yesterday it delivered a victory to the Trump administration’s efforts to boost detention and deportation of illegal immigrants.

In yesterday’s 5-3 rejection of a lower court ruling that detained immigrants facing removal must be allowed a bond hearing after six months, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration’s efforts to boost detentions, even of asylum seekers.

The court held that the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overstepped by essentially rewriting federal immigration law to include a provision not contemplated by lawmakers.

“The meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear,” and requires no reinterpretation based on challengers’ constitutional due-process claims, wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the court’s majority, made up of its most conservative jurists. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

Justice Stephen Breyer read from his dissent from the bench — a move meant to underscore a justice’s disagreement — stressing that even illegal immigrants deserve protections outlined by the Constitution that bar indefinite detention.

“We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain inalienable rights,’ and among them is the right to ‘liberty,’ ” Breyer said.

The Obama administration also urged the justices to reject challengers’ claim that due process required detainees to be given a hearing and a chance to seek a bonded release, but Trump has vowed to crack down on “catch and release” policies and impose procedures tougher than his predecessor. Lawyers representing illegal immigrants said that the ruling could essentially set a trap for some.

“Due to a lack of access to quality legal counsel, during the criminal proceedings, many immigrants plead and/or admit to things that they were never informed could impact their immigrant status — just to avoid jail time,” said Loide Rosa Jorge, a Washington, D.C.based immigration and nationality attorney. Then down the road, sometimes years later, they find themselves indefinitely detained.

The challengers’ constitutional claim is not completely dead. Alito ordered the case remanded back to the lower court to consider them first.

ACLU attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, who argued the Supreme Court case, said the group would return to the lower court to “show that these statutes, now interpreted by the Supreme Court to require detention without any hearing, violate the Due Process Clause.”