Supreme Court Delivers a Critical 8-1 Ruling: Illegal aliens, who have been detained for 6 months, do not have the same civil liberties as American citizens

The U.S. Supreme Court made some key rulings on immigration this week, as the nation’s highest court found that illegal aliens, who have been detained for six months, do not have the same civil liberties as American citizens do- and they do not have the legal right to a bond hearing for release.

“The decision addressed two separate cases involving three illegal aliens, two Mexican nationals that entered the U.S. illegally after being previously deported. After they were detained, they filed a putative class action for a bond hearing after six months of detention. The third illegal alien was from El Salvador and reentered the country illegally after being deported. He also sued in Washington federal court for a bond hearing. The case was brought to the high court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight,” the CenterSquare reported, adding:

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion.

The case was brought to Court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight, Martin Wash reported for Conservative Brief, adding :

Biden was criticized for the move, with the American Civil Liberties Union claiming the administration was “decidedly on the wrong side of this fight.”

In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court held that the statute does bar class-wide injunctive relief, leaving open the possibility of injunctive relief for multiple named plaintiffs.

Alito wrote, “It generally prohibits 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.”

A recent report from Voice of America detailed how the Supreme Court is expected to deliver several major rulings this year on immigration-related cases.

“U.S. judges will be making important rulings on immigration in 2023, playing a significant role in shaping the nation’s immigration policy. Congress has not revised American immigration laws comprehensively since 1990, and Cornell Law School Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr told VOA that efforts by subsequent administrations to revise the immigration system through executive orders are tied up in court battles,” the outlet noted.

The Supreme Court ruled in December to keep the Trump-era rule in place for now, while other legal challenges to the policy play out in other courts. The court will hear arguments in the case in February before making a final decision.

Title 42 is a law giving the federal government the power to shut down the border as an emergency action. It was put in place under then-President Donald Trump in March 2020 and has prevented hundreds of thousands of migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S.

The rule was set to expire before the Supreme Court stepped in as thousands more migrants are packed in shelters on Mexico’s border with the U.S.

Trump used Title 42 in 2020 when the COVID pandemic broke out worldwide. Since it was enacted, over two million migrants have been expelled. President Joe Biden also left the rule in place.

One of the other major cases before the Supreme Court is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that started under former President Barack Obama.

“The Biden administration revised the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program in 2022, putting it through the formal rulemaking process to increase its odds of satisfying the arguments that it was not properly created. Since its inception in 2012, it has protected from deportation hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children,” Voice of America reported.

“In 2018, Texas and other Republican-led states sued the federal government, arguing that DACA harms states financially because they legally must provide education, health care, and other services to all residents of their states, including undocumented immigrants. The states further argue that only Congress has the authority to grant immigration benefits,” the outlet added.

The EPOCH times reported on another SCOTUS case, where they differed with Biden:

The Supreme Court seemed resistant to Biden administration arguments on Jan. 17 that could lead to the deportation of a transgender illegal alien from Guatemala seeking asylum.

The issue is whether noncitizens have to petition the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its alleged errors before they ask federal courts of appeals for review. Those courts of appeals are split on the issue and “the Supreme Court’s answer could significantly impact noncitizens facing deportation and the immigration courts tasked with hearing their pleas for relief,” according to a SCOTUSblog summary.

The U.S. government tried to deport Leon Santos-Zacaria, 34, a Guatemalan citizen who was born male but identifies as a woman and uses the first name Estrella in everyday life. Santos-Zacaria entered the United States illegally at least twice and was removed to Guatemala in 2008 and 2012. He came back to the United States in 2018 and, after being detained, applied for something called withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and for sanctuary under the Convention Against Torture.

Illegal aliens... do not have the same civil liberties as American citizens do. What a novel, common sense ruling.

Now to stretch that precedent to cover a bunch of old contrary rulings. Illegals shouldn't not be eligible for federally paid welfare and other benefits, other than that necessary for their decent survival until their illegal presence is promptly removed. Proper SCOTUS precedent could avoid the alternative of passing a legislative ban with added clauses stating such ban isn't judicially reviewable, ie. using those forgotten checks and balances. Removing federal $ incentives would be make a big dent in new illegal entrants and properly enforcing such would lead to a large wave of self deportations. Ending the legal fiction (promoted by a century of brain washing) that illegals' children, illegally born in US, are citizens at birth, removes another bad incentive. Had they effectively been under the jurisdiction of the US they'd have been born elsewhere! Obviously any such changes need to be well administered with adequate due process to protect real citizens and legal immigrants.

If individual states want to spend their own resources to subsidize such they may, at the risk of competitive pressure from wiser, pro legal resident, states.

You won’t be able to find this information because such a ruling *does not exist*.

Correct.

ORAL ARGUMENT at Scotus was heard Tuesday, January 17, 2023.

[TRANSCRIPT] https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/21-1436_m6hn.pdf

[AUDIO] https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/84704/santos-zacaria-v-garland-atty-gen/

The case is Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, S. Ct. 21-1436

https://supremecourt.gov/qp/21-01436qp.pdf

21-1436 SANTOS-ZACARIA V. GARLAND
DECISION BELOW: 22 F.4th 570
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2022
QUESTION PRESENTED:
After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her application for withholding of removal, petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria filed a petition for review. Although the government agreed that the court had jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit sua sponte dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which requires a noncitizen to exhaust "all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right."
This holding implicates two circuit splits, each of which independently warrants review.
1. Eight circuits hold that Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Two circuits disagree, holding that exhaustion may be waived. Multiple courts and judges have called for further review of this issue. The first question presented is:
Whether Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited.
2. Further, petitioner's merits argument is that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding. In these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit, along with three other circuits, requires a noncitizen to file a motion to reopen or reconsider with the agency in order to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s requirement that a noncitizen exhaust "remedies available * * * as of right." Two other circuits, recognizing that "[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board" (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2) disagree. The second question presented is:
Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the BIA must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-60355

- - - - -

[Article] “Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322_new_986b.pdf

See Garland v. Gonzalez, S. Ct. 20-322 (June 13, 2022), Opinion of the Court by Alito, J. The opinion of Sotomayor in Gonzalez was not the Opinion of the Court.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III.

From the opinion of Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:

At 1:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins as to Parts II–A–2, II–B–2, and III, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

At 1-2:

Respondents in these two cases are named plaintiffs in two class actions: Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez in the Aleman Gonzalez litigation, and Edwin Omar Flores Tejada in the Flores Tejada litigation. Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture. See ante, at 2; Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 5–7) (explaining “withholding-only proceedings”). The Government detained them pending their proceedings, a detention this Court has held authorized by 8 U. S. C. §1231. See Guzman Chavez, 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.