On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on the right to trial for immigrants regarding deportation. Specifically, the case questions whether immigrants may make a plea for release if they have been detained for an prolonged amount of time.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 40,000 people are currently in custody awaiting deportation. In some cases, immigrants in custody must wait years for the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether they will be deported. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that each immigrant should be allowed a hearing after six months of incarceration and every six month period following.
The case, Jennings v. Rodriquez, was originally filed by several immigrants who have been in custody for extraordinary lengths of time, and represented by ACLU lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham. Arulanantham argued that the issue before the Court was not a matter of whether to release people in custody, but instead whether people in custody for deportation have the right to a trial to defend their citizenship. “We’re just talking about the need for an inquiry, the need for a hearing,” stated Arulanantham. The grounds of the case revolve around the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which provides that the justice system may not deprive “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Plaintiff Alejandro Rodriguez is one such example of why people detained pending deportation would require a trial to prove their citizenship. Rodriguez is a legal US citizen who was brought to America as an infant. After being convicted of possession of narcotics and driving in a stolen car, the Department of Homeland Security detained him pending deportation. However, Rodriguez did not spend any time in jail for his conviction.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated “We do not have [a] constitutional issue before us.” Chief Justice John Roberts also voiced his scepticism of the Appeals Court’s decision, stating “The problem is, that looks an awful lot like drafting a statute or a regulation… We can’t just write a different statute.”
