3 Recent Supreme Court Immigration Decisions |
Supreme CourtDuring May and June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued 3 decisions regarding federal immigration law, each of which severely limits the rights of immigrants to challenge the decisions of government agencies.
Particularly concerning is Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland, issued on May 16, 2022 which holds that immigrants can not dispute inaccurate factual determinations by government agencies in Federal Court.
However, we will start with the 2 decisions that the Supreme Court issued on June 13, 2022.
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
This case involves a citizen of Mexico who was deported from the U.S. in July 2012, but because of fear for his life, reentered the U.S. without inspection 2 months later. An asylum officer determined that he had established a reasonable fear of persecution and he was referred to withholding of removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge.
After being detained by the DHS for 4 months, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention without a bond hearing under both statutory and constitutional grounds. DHS conceded that he would be entitled to a bond hearing after 6 months of detention unless he posed a flight risk or a danger to the community. Both the Federal District Court Judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. The Immigration Judge then authorized his release pending resolution of his pending application for withholding of removal.
However, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that the law as stated in 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) does not require DHS to provide noncitizens like Mr. Arteaga-Martinez with a bond hearing after 6 months of confinement. The Supreme Court left it to the lower Courts to determine whether this law violates the U.S. Constitution. |
Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez
In a companion case involving prolonged detention, also decided on June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the law at 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) bars class-wide injunctive relief. The majority 6-3 opinion states that this section of the law “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”
Patel v. Garland
The Majority Opinion
This decision has most far-reaching effect on limiting the rights of immigrants, and the 5-4 majority decision was vigorously contested by Justice Gorsuch in his dissent. |
| Zoom Consultations Available! |
|
|
Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk. All content Copyright © Carl Shusterman 1995-2022, All rights reserved |
Unsubscribe |
|
|
|
