Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
Con la sentenza di ieri, la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti cassa un’altra sentenza emessa dalla Corte Federale di Appello del nono Circuito: in due anni la Suprema Corte ha cassato, ossia revocato di autorità, trentacinque su trentasei sentenze emesse da quei giudici che bloccavano provvedimenti legislativi emessi dal presidente Trump.
Questa sentenza della Suprema Corte ha anche una caratteristica alla quale gli estensori ricorrono raramente: è infatti preceduta da una estensivo Syllabus e da un altrettanto dettagliato Certiorari.
«a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.»
Si ricorda come il Certiorari altro non sia che il documento imperativo che una corte superiore invia ad una inferiore, che riporta commentate tutte le leggi e le pregresse sentenze che devono essere prese in considerazione nel valutare il quesito.
Da come scritti, ambedue i regesti sono un vero e proprio schiaffo dato a piena mano, specie quando ricordano la grammatica e la lessicologia inglese, così ‘violentemente’ bistrattate dai giudici del 9th Circuito.
* * * * * * *
«The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration an immigration policy victory by ruling criminal noncitizens can be detained at any time»
«The 5-4 ruling states federal officials may detain convicted immigrants indefinitely after they finish serving prison time, even years after»
«the Supreme Court reversed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals»
* * * * * * *
Reuters definisce la Corte di Appello del 9th Circuito in questa maniera::
«a liberal leaning court with jurisdiction over a large part of the western United States that Trump has frequently criticized.»
Passi che siano liberal democratici, ma che la Suprema Corte debba far loro lezione di grammatica e lessico è davvero cosa molto fuori della norma.
«The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration an immigration policy victory by ruling criminal noncitizens can be detained at any time.
The 5-4 ruling states federal officials may detain convicted immigrants indefinitely after they finish serving prison time, even years after.
Advocates had argued the law only allowed for detention immediately after immigrants were released from prison. ….
Tuesday’s ruling reversed a lower court decision that had found the existing law to mean federal authorities must detain convicted immigrants within 24 hours of their release from criminal detention.»
«The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a ruling on immigration reform that comes as a major victory to President Donald Trump. In a 5 – 4 decision announced on Tuesday, the court ruled that federal immigration authorities like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can legally detain immigrants who are awaiting deportation after completing prison sentences for criminal offenses. ….
What this ruling means is that the government is now legally empowered to arrest and detain immigrants convicted of criminality, without a statute of limitations on when the offense was committed. ….
Under the ruling, it is now the legal position of the U.S. that regardless of how much time has passed or what rehabilitation has taken place, any immigrant convicted of a criminal act is liable to face arrest minutes, hours, days, months, years or decades after the fact. As pointed out by Supreme court Justice Neil Gorsuch, there is now effectively no check on the government’s power to intervene in an immigrant’s life once they receive a criminal conviction. ….»
«The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime – potentially even years – after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies. ….
The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could place such immigrants into indefinite detention anytime without the possibility of bail, not just immediately after they finish prison sentences. ….
It marked Trump’s latest immigration victory at the court. The conservative justices also were in the majority in June 2018 when the court upheld on a 5-4 vote Trump’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. ….
In the two detention case rulings, the Supreme Court reversed the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal leaning court with jurisdiction over a large part of the western United States that Trump has frequently criticized.»
«- Court bolsters power to hold legal residents facing deporation
– Kavanaugh, Gorsuch join court’s conservatives in 5-4 majority
A divided U.S. Supreme Court bolstered the government’s power to detain people who are facing deportation because of crimes they committed, siding with the Trump administration in a clash with implications for so-called sanctuary cities.
The case focused on non-citizen legal residents who serve a criminal sentence, get released and later are arrested by federal immigration agents.
The 5-4 ruling Tuesday said those people aren’t entitled to a bond hearing, and the possibility of re-release, while the Homeland Security Department presses its case for deportation. The ruling reversed a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ….
President Donald Trump’s administration says the problem is especially acute in jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with requests to hold a prisoner until federal officials arrive. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as sanctuary cities. The Trump administration inherited the case from the Obama administration. ….
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority, but they splintered in their reasoning. ….
The issue before us is entirely statutory and requires our interpretation of the strict 1996 illegal-immigration law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. ….
The ruling is the second Supreme Court decision in 13 months to curb bond hearings for people facing deportation. The court last year overturned a ruling that had guaranteed periodic bond hearings, and the possibility of release, for thousands of detained foreigners.»
È vezzo corrente sostenere che in Occidente giustizia e politica siano due poteri separati.
L’escussione di codesti casi lascia invece più che il sospetto la certezza che la giustizia cerchi di surrogare il potere politico.
→ The Washington Times. 2019-03-19. Supreme Court upholds ICE detention without bail for serious criminals
Immigrants living in the U.S. with serious criminal records can be held without bail while awaiting deportation even if ICE didn’t immediately pick them up when they were released from prison or jail, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 5-4 decision marked another rejection for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal panel that covers the country’s West Coast and that has tested a number of legal theories on immigration law.
In this case, the 9th Circuit had ruled that under the law, if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately arrested someone released from a federal, state or local prison, they could be held without bond in the immigration detention system. But if ICE didn’t immediately arrest them, the migrants must be given a chance to make bond.
The case turned on a phrase in the law that says the no-bail determination applies to someone picked up by ICE “when the alien is released” from prison or jail. The lower court ruled “when” must mean the day of release.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing the majority opinion, said that could create a new loophole for sanctuary cities, which often refuse to alert ICE officers when releasing people from their local prisons and jails.
“Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release,” he wrote.
He said it made more sense that “when” means at some point after the release, not at the exact moment of it.
While many immigrants living in the U.S. illegally are released while they await their court proceedings and possible deportation, Congress has deemed some serious criminals to be such safety risks that they must be held by ICE while their cases proceed.
Those are the ones affected by Tuesday’s ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which had represented the migrants challenging their detention, criticized the court’s decision.
“For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge,” said Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s deputy director.
The court’s four Democratic-appointed justices dissented from Tuesday’s decision, saying if Congress had intended to require all serious criminal migrants to be denied bail, regardless of when they were arrested, it would have said that.
The case was limited to the reading of the law and what Congress intended, and did not broach bigger questions about the constitutionality of no-bail proceedings. Justice Alito said “as-applied” challenges to how the administration carries out the law can still be brought.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. They said the lower courts shouldn’t have even got involved in the case because Congress has specifically precluded jurisdiction over these kinds of detention decisions. But since the court was involved, they said they generally agreed with Justice Alito’s conclusions.