Good news!(?)<\/p>\n
It\u2019s good news of sorts, so we\u2019ll go with a qualified \u201cgood news!\u201d here. There\u2019s a little table setting that needs to be done to explain why it\u2019s better now than it was before the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court continued ingratiating itself to race-motivated tyranny.<\/p>\n
I realize that\u2019s not a great pitch in terms of \u201cgood news,\u201d but it\u2019s all I have. When Trump first started his race war in the United States, it seemed almost inevitable that courts would shut him down. Trump advisors set goals (I\u2019m looking at you, Stephen Miller\/Happy Time Harry<\/a>) that\u00a0couldn\u2019t possibly be met<\/a>\u00a0without violating rights. No more \u201cworst of the worst.\u201d It was just everyone who looked kinda brown.<\/p>\n Trump invoked<\/a>\u00a0the Alien Enemies Act, hoping that this would allow him to treat anyone of any foreign nationality the way we treated people of Japanese descent during World War II.<\/p>\n To be fair, courts resisted this argument. And most courts made it extremely clear that this nation has\u00a0always<\/em>\u00a0extended constitutional rights to non-citizens who reside in the US.<\/p>\n But not the Fifth Circuit. The appellate circuit hosting most of Trump\u2019s favorite detention centers\u00a0ruled in February<\/a>\u00a0that those rights simply don\u2019t apply to whoever this administration is seeking to get rid of. According to this decision, the government was\u00a0well within its rights<\/a>\u00a0to detain migrants indefinitely without giving them access to their due process rights.<\/p>\n Consequently (and coupled with\u00a0Justice Kavanaugh\u2019s blessing<\/a>\u00a0of stops based on little more than skin color and\/or perceived accent), detainees arrested anywhere else in the country were speedily delivered to detention centers in the Fifth Circuit to ensure they weren\u2019t allowed to challenge their arrests or detentions.<\/p>\n That was February. It\u2019s now July. And for whatever reason, the Fifth Circuit has walked back a bit of its earlier decision. Now, it says\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0rights apply to migrants detained by the government, but only after a rights-free waiting period.<\/p>\n The\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0[PDF] grants the government deference it definitely doesn\u2019t deserve. It does, however, make it clear the Constitution still needs to be respected\u2026 but not immediately.<\/p>\n We understand the recent interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez that detention is mandatory for anyone who entered this country without authorization is creating enormous difficulties in district courts. Thousands of immigration detainees are filing applications for writs of habeas corpus in United States district courts. Our resolution of this case requires the executive branch to provide bond hearings through its own procedures. That shifts the location of the burden, but it leaves its size unaffected. Nonetheless, the answer to those difficulties cannot include ignoring the Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s the court referring to its February decision \u2014 the one in which it said the government can detain migrants without bond indefinitely, effectively denying them their 14th Amendment rights. In this case, it shifts to the Fifth Amendment. In doing so, it comes to a conclusion that seems diametrically opposed to its original ruling.<\/p>\n These two sets of rights are almost inseparable in this context. But that\u2019s not the context the Fifth Circuit used to deny this right (over plenty of dissent) in the Buenrostro-Mendez case. In that one, the court pretended there was no difference between detaining people trying to illegally cross the border and detaining people who had already been in this country for weeks, months, years, or decades. It decided any migrant was basically caught in the act of illegal entry and, in doing so, were not entitled to constitutional protections.<\/p>\n In this case, it\u2019s the Fifth Amendment that gets its day in court. And since it\u2019s a different right, the court somehow manages to come to a conclusion that makes a mockery of its original (and fantastical) take on the phrase \u201cupon entry.\u201d<\/p>\n It also must be noted that the judges who handled this case weren\u2019t the same ones who handled the previous case. The previous case was\u00a0overseen by two<\/a>\u00a0of the most\u00a0blatantly right-wing<\/a>\u00a0judges in the Fifth Circuit:\u00a0Edith Jones<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Kyle Duncan<\/a>.<\/p>\n That \u2014 more than anything else \u2014 most likely explains why the same court has decided migrants have rights, even if it\u2019s not willing to let migrants use them until after some weird, not-supported-by-law probationary period has passed.<\/p>\n After a lot of discussion of earlier cases, the government\u2019s assertions (and admissions that many people it detains are not flight risks), and a long walk through the history of immigration law, the court somehow arrives at this conclusion:<\/p>\n Given the absence of any categorical justification for detention<\/strong>, unlike in Zadvydas (aliens who have been found to be removable) and Demore (aliens who were convicted of criminal offenses), there is no reason to lengthen the period of time during which the validity of detention can be presumed.\u00a0We conclude that the Government may detain aliens under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) for ninety days but no longer without a bond hearing<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve put some stuff in bold because I don\u2019t want anyone to miss what\u2019s being said here, even if they\u2019re just skimming this post.<\/p>\n For those who may have bypassed the dry text of the court, here\u2019s what the Fifth Circuit is saying:<\/p>\n The government is allowed to violate rights for up to three months at a time. That\u2019s not really a win. Sure, it\u2019s better than what was decided earlier \u2014 you know, the decision that simply said migrants had no rights at all because they all could be perceived as being apprehended crossing the border, even if they weren\u2019t apprehended until they\u2019d already spent years in this country.<\/p>\n This means ICE, et al will continue to detain whoever they want anywhere in the nation and ship them out to the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) detention centers as soon as possible. One decision already says the 14th Amendment doesn\u2019t apply. This one says the Fifth Amendment does apply, but only after 90 days.<\/p>\n The Fifth\u2019s ruling are in opposition with the rest of nation, where hundreds of judges have ruled in thousands of cases against the administration\u2019s constant violation of migrant\u2019s constitutional rights. But it insists on being everything the MAGA-cooked could ask of it. That it oversees Texas and Louisiana \u2014 states home to multiple ICE detention centers \u2014 isn\u2019t a coincidence.<\/p>\n World Cup Propels Surveillance To New\u00a0Heights<\/a> The post Fifth Circuit Says Gov\u2019t Can Violate Migrants\u2019 Due Process Rights\u2026 But Only For 90 Days<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Good news!(?)<\/p>\n It\u2019s good news of sorts, so we\u2019ll go with a qualified \u201cgood news!\u201d here. There\u2019s a little table setting that needs to be done to explain why it\u2019s better now than it was before the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court continued ingratiating itself to race-motivated tyranny.<\/p>\n I realize that\u2019s not a great pitch in terms of \u201cgood news,\u201d but it\u2019s all I have. When Trump first started his race war in the United States, it seemed almost inevitable that courts would shut him down. Trump advisors set goals (I\u2019m looking at you, Stephen Miller\/Happy Time Harry<\/a>) that\u00a0couldn\u2019t possibly be met<\/a>\u00a0without violating rights. No more \u201cworst of the worst.\u201d It was just everyone who looked kinda brown.<\/p>\n Trump invoked<\/a>\u00a0the Alien Enemies Act, hoping that this would allow him to treat anyone of any foreign nationality the way we treated people of Japanese descent during World War II.<\/p>\n To be fair, courts resisted this argument. And most courts made it extremely clear that this nation has\u00a0always<\/em>\u00a0extended constitutional rights to non-citizens who reside in the US.<\/p>\n But not the Fifth Circuit. The appellate circuit hosting most of Trump\u2019s favorite detention centers\u00a0ruled in February<\/a>\u00a0that those rights simply don\u2019t apply to whoever this administration is seeking to get rid of. According to this decision, the government was\u00a0well within its rights<\/a>\u00a0to detain migrants indefinitely without giving them access to their due process rights.<\/p>\n Consequently (and coupled with\u00a0Justice Kavanaugh\u2019s blessing<\/a>\u00a0of stops based on little more than skin color and\/or perceived accent), detainees arrested anywhere else in the country were speedily delivered to detention centers in the Fifth Circuit to ensure they weren\u2019t allowed to challenge their arrests or detentions.<\/p>\n That was February. It\u2019s now July. And for whatever reason, the Fifth Circuit has walked back a bit of its earlier decision. Now, it says\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0rights apply to migrants detained by the government, but only after a rights-free waiting period.<\/p>\n The\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0[PDF] grants the government deference it definitely doesn\u2019t deserve. It does, however, make it clear the Constitution still needs to be respected\u2026 but not immediately.<\/p>\n We understand the recent interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez that detention is mandatory for anyone who entered this country without authorization is creating enormous difficulties in district courts. Thousands of immigration detainees are filing applications for writs of habeas corpus in United States district courts. Our resolution of this case requires the executive branch to provide bond hearings through its own procedures. That shifts the location of the burden, but it leaves its size unaffected. Nonetheless, the answer to those difficulties cannot include ignoring the Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s the court referring to its February decision \u2014 the one in which it said the government can detain migrants without bond indefinitely, effectively denying them their 14th Amendment rights. In this case, it shifts to the Fifth Amendment. In doing so, it comes to a conclusion that seems diametrically opposed to its original ruling.<\/p>\n These two sets of rights are almost inseparable in this context. But that\u2019s not the context the Fifth Circuit used to deny this right (over plenty of dissent) in the Buenrostro-Mendez case. In that one, the court pretended there was no difference between detaining people trying to illegally cross the border and detaining people who had already been in this country for weeks, months, years, or decades. It decided any migrant was basically caught in the act of illegal entry and, in doing so, were not entitled to constitutional protections.<\/p>\n In this case, it\u2019s the Fifth Amendment that gets its day in court. And since it\u2019s a different right, the court somehow manages to come to a conclusion that makes a mockery of its original (and fantastical) take on the phrase \u201cupon entry.\u201d<\/p>\n It also must be noted that the judges who handled this case weren\u2019t the same ones who handled the previous case. The previous case was\u00a0overseen by two<\/a>\u00a0of the most\u00a0blatantly right-wing<\/a>\u00a0judges in the Fifth Circuit:\u00a0Edith Jones<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Kyle Duncan<\/a>.<\/p>\n That \u2014 more than anything else \u2014 most likely explains why the same court has decided migrants have rights, even if it\u2019s not willing to let migrants use them until after some weird, not-supported-by-law probationary period has passed.<\/p>\n After a lot of discussion of earlier cases, the government\u2019s assertions (and admissions that many people it detains are not flight risks), and a long walk through the history of immigration law, the court somehow arrives at this conclusion:<\/p>\n Given the absence of any categorical justification for detention<\/strong>, unlike in Zadvydas (aliens who have been found to be removable) and Demore (aliens who were convicted of criminal offenses), there is no reason to lengthen the period of time during which the validity of detention can be presumed.\u00a0We conclude that the Government may detain aliens under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) for ninety days but no longer without a bond hearing<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve put some stuff in bold because I don\u2019t want anyone to miss what\u2019s being said here, even if they\u2019re just skimming this post.<\/p>\n For those who may have bypassed the dry text of the court, here\u2019s what the Fifth Circuit is saying:<\/p>\n The government is allowed to violate rights for up to three months at a time. That\u2019s not really a win. Sure, it\u2019s better than what was decided earlier \u2014 you know, the decision that simply said migrants had no rights at all because they all could be perceived as being apprehended crossing the border, even if they weren\u2019t apprehended until they\u2019d already spent years in this country.<\/p>\n This means ICE, et al will continue to detain whoever they want anywhere in the nation and ship them out to the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) detention centers as soon as possible. One decision already says the 14th Amendment doesn\u2019t apply. This one says the Fifth Amendment does apply, but only after 90 days.<\/p>\n The Fifth\u2019s ruling are in opposition with the rest of nation, where hundreds of judges have ruled in thousands of cases against the administration\u2019s constant violation of migrant\u2019s constitutional rights. But it insists on being everything the MAGA-cooked could ask of it. That it oversees Texas and Louisiana \u2014 states home to multiple ICE detention centers \u2014 isn\u2019t a coincidence.<\/p>\n World Cup Propels Surveillance To New\u00a0Heights<\/a> The post Fifth Circuit Says Gov\u2019t Can Violate Migrants\u2019 Due Process Rights\u2026 But Only For 90 Days<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good news!(?) It\u2019s good news of sorts, so we\u2019ll go with a qualified \u201cgood news!\u201d here. There\u2019s a little table setting that needs to be done to explain why it\u2019s better now than it was before the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court continued ingratiating itself to race-motivated tyranny. I realize that\u2019s not a great pitch in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156231","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156231\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
ICE Office Of Professional Responsibility Ditches ICE Oversight, Starts Hunting Down ICE Critics<\/a>
An Indian Billionaire Was Targeted By Trump. Then He Poured Money Into A Startup Secretly Backed by Donald Trump Jr.<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
ICE Office Of Professional Responsibility Ditches ICE Oversight, Starts Hunting Down ICE Critics<\/a>
An Indian Billionaire Was Targeted By Trump. Then He Poured Money Into A Startup Secretly Backed by Donald Trump Jr.<\/a><\/p>\n