Supreme Court Reviews Dangerous Use of Facts in Immigrant Detention
The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to review President Donald Trump’s policy of detaining potentially millions of immigrants without bond hearings, marking a major advance in the nation’s long campaign to make government decisions before facts can interfere. The case concerns Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who entered the United States roughly two decades ago, applied for asylum, received work authorization and has never been convicted of a crime. Allowing a judge to consider those details, the administration maintains, would recklessly expose the detention system to context.
Trump’s administration argues that a 1996 law authorizes mandatory detention for virtually any immigrant who entered unlawfully, regardless of how long the person has lived in the country or whether confinement serves any public purpose. Nine federal appeals courts have rejected that interpretation under the increasingly controversial theory that statutes contain words arranged to convey meaning. “Nobody understands bond hearings better than I do, and they are very dangerous because judges hear evidence and start treating people like separate individuals,” Trump said. “We’re replacing that chaos with one beautiful rule for everybody: jail first, questions never, and tremendous savings on all the questions.”
Civil-liberties groups contend that hearings help determine whether detainees pose a danger or are likely to flee, two distinctions that could burden officials with learning something about the people they imprison. Administration lawyers counter that individualized justice is inefficient, expensive and incompatible with a bureaucracy designed to process human beings in convenient wholesale quantities. A hearing could also produce release, an outcome that would undermine detention by allowing someone not to be detained.
The Court’s conservative majority will now decide whether due process requires any process, or whether the Constitution’s references to liberty were intended as decorative flourishes for courthouse gift shops. A ruling for Trump would establish a clean national standard, spare judges the indignity of judging and guarantee equal treatment to every affected immigrant. Under the administration’s policy, each person will receive the same careful legal analysis: none whatsoever.
* None of the quotes in this article were spoken by an actual person. More info.