Supreme Court Rules Against Migrants

Supreme Court Rules Against Migrants

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision that will have a significant impact on illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that illegal aliens who have been detained for more than six months do not have the constitutional right to a bond hearing in order to be released from custody. The decision addressed two separate cases involving three illegal aliens, two of whom were Mexican nationals who illegally entered the United States after having been deported in the past. According to a report from the Daily Caller, after they were detained, they filed a putative class action demanding a bond hearing after six months of being held in custody.

The third illegal immigrant was from El Salvador and had also previously been deported from the United States before illegally entering the country again. Additionally, he filed a lawsuit for a bond hearing in the federal court located in Washington. The case was initially brought before the Supreme Court during the Trump administration, and it was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the fight that had been started during the Trump administration,” the outlet added.

The liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a majority opinion that the law is silent on the point, which was part of an 8-1 decision that brought together the conservative and liberal wings of the court. Sotomayer wrote in her opinion that the respondents feared persecution or torture if returned to their home countries.

According to the Associated Press, the case was initially brought before the Court during the Trump administration, and it was then inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the fight that had been started during the Trump administration.

The American Civil Liberties Union claimed that the administration was decidedly on the wrong side of this fight” as a result of Biden’s decision, which drew criticism for the president. The court decided, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, that the statute does prohibit receiving injunctive relief on behalf of an entire class, but that it does not preclude receiving injunctive relief for multiple named plaintiffs.

According to 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 provisions of the specified statutes.”It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on Monday in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which will delay the official decision in the case, which is anticipated to overturn the right to have an abortion.

The decisions in a number of cases were handed down by the justices on Monday, but the Dobbs case was not one of them. There is approximately one month left in the current term that the court is serving. Fox News reported that a ruling in the Dobbs case is anticipated to come either at the end of June or the beginning of July.

On Monday, the court issued decisions in three separate cases. The first case was a bankruptcy law case involving a trustee for the defunct technology store Circuit City. The second case was a Florida-based case on Medicaid. The third case was a labor dispute involving Southwest Airlines and a worker who wanted to sue the airline rather than go to arbitration over allegedly lacking overtime wages,” the report added.

There is a dispute over a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy in the Dobbs case. The case was argued in December, and it is seen as the biggest test yet for how the new 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the court will handle major controversial issues. This majority will be capped with the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020,” the report continued.

The impending decision comes at the same time that officials from the Supreme Court are ramping up their search for the source of the opinion draft that was stolen and leaked, which would overturn Roe v. Wade. After the information became public, the Supreme Court of the United States took a number of measures, one of which was to mandate that law clerks provide records of their cell phone use and sign affidavits. At the beginning of this month, a draft of the majority opinion that was written by Justice Samuel Alito was provided to Politico, and it sparked a raging debate on social media.

Alito states in his writing that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning. In the document, he writes, We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to pay attention to the Constitution and give the issue of abortion back to the representatives who were elected by the people, As a result, we are of the opinion that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion. Alito writes in the “Opinion of the Court” that Roe and Casey must be overturned and the power to regulate abortion returned to the people and their elected representatives.

As soon as Alito’s draft of the majority opinion was made public, it was assumed that there were at least five votes in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. This would have left it up to individual state legislatures to decide how they would regulate abortion. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, also shared his thoughts on the matter, speculating about who he thinks the leaker could be.