The Impact on Bond for Immigrants
By Grace Rolman
On Monday, June 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled on two major immigration cases related to the right to bond. The first case, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, involved a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. and was ordered to be removed; however, Arteaga-Martinez sought “withholding of removal” under fears of torture, which means an individual is claiming they should not be sent back to the country they originate from as it is too dangerous for them to return.
While Arteaga-Martinez was seeking “withholding of removal” due to the dangerous circumstances that he would be subjected to if removed to Mexico, Arteaga-Martinez remained in detention and was detained for over a six-month period. Arteaga-Martinez brought the case to court that he should have a right to a bond hearing after a six-month waiting period in detention; however, the Supreme Court found in a split decision that non-citizens are not entitled to a bond hearing after a six-month waiting period in detention. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez. Five justices agreed with the majority opinion, while four justices disagreed.
Another major immigration-related Supreme Court opinion was published on June 13, under Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, which consolidated two class action cases, which are cases with multiple plaintiffs or complainants against an individual or organization The case raised the question of whether immigrants are entitled to a bond hearing after significantly long periods of detention, and it also raised the question whether a specific provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act barred the class-wide injunctive relief the district court had ordered. Injunctive relief, or an injunction, requires a party to act or perform in a certain way or prohibits a party from acting or performing in a particular way. The Supreme Court held in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez that immigrants could not band together in a class-action suit to seek relief, but rather they must seek relief individually.
Both these cases do make seeking relief more difficult for those who are in long-term detention and are in removal proceedings with the Immigration Court. ***These cases do not impact anyone who is not in detention, in removal proceedings, or in immigration court.***
What does it mean to be in detention? If you are in detention, this means you have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, and are not free to move around. You are not living within a house or apartment or shelter, but rather, within a private- or government-run facility with many other immigrants who are also in detention. You will be awaiting a court date to speak with an immigration judge to move along your proceedings if you are in detention.
What does it mean to be in removal proceedings? This means that the U.S. government has determined that you do not have the authorization to be in or remain in the country and has placed you into proceedings before the immigration court. In order to avoid receiving a removal order, which means that you are ordered to leave the country (deported), you will have to defend your case and prove that you are eligible for some kind of relief - or permission to stay in the country - under U.S. immigration law.
How do these decisions affect peoples’ rights? For those individuals who are impacted by this ruling, it has a direct impact on people’s rights. While it is clear that those withheld in detention facilities are not allowed to be held indefinitely, this Supreme Court holding states that those without citizenship status are not entitled to a bond hearing even after being detained for a certain period of time - even a lengthy period of time. One of the petitioners had been detained for over six months when they requested a bond hearing but was ultimately denied by The Supreme Court stating that non-citizens did not have the right to bond hearings when detained and had to wait through the process of detainment. However, under the Patriot Act, the U.S. statute which non-citizens are governed under, the Attorney General is to place the immigrant into removal proceedings or charge them with a criminal charge within seven days of their initial detention. The Patriot Act goes on to say an immigrant may only be detained for periods of time up to six months only if the release of the immigrant will threaten national security or the safety of the community or any person. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the Attorney General if immigrants are to be detained for up to six months with no bond hearing and no proof that their release would not threaten the United States’ national security, falsely imprisoning hundreds of immigrants if not thousands of immigrants at the U.S. border within detention facilities.
These people’s lives have been placed on hold as they have been told their livelihood is simply not as important or worthy as U.S. citizens’ lives. While bond is not a guaranteed right under the Patriot Act, detainment is not allowed to be indefinite as there is a limit on the amount of time the government can detain people in order to question and determine whether they are a threat to the United States’ security; however, it is clear that with these people who are being mistreated and detained for more than six months at a time, their basic human rights are not being cared for or respected in these detention facilities. If an individual’s removal is not likely to occur, then detaining them because they are not likely to be removed without evidence that they are a threat to national security is a direct violation of their human rights. Detaining someone because they are likely to not be removed quickly and there is no proof of a threat to national security is an arbitrary detainment and arrest.
Should you be worried about these new policies? The only individuals who need to worry about these new policies and laws held by the Supreme Court are those currently in detention long-term; however, even those who are in detention long-term are not allowed to be in detention indefinitely. Their cases must be heard and eventually, these individuals who are in detention must either be released or removed.