Eighth Circuit may give Trump another win on mandatory immigration detention
This affects the entire country.
Another federal appeals court could hand President Donald Trump a victory in his legal war over mandatory detention for illegal immigration, as a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit appeared friendly to the administration’s stance during arguments on Thursday.
The Trump administration won a key legal victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this month, when the appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s illegal immigrant mandatory detention policy, rejecting claims by opponents of the administration that bond hearings are required for illegal immigrants. The ruling was the first time an appeals court had upheld the policy, after the administration faced hundreds of losses in federal district courts, as the problem inches closer to the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit, which comprises mostly Republican-appointed judges, appeared skeptical of the arguments from Michael Tan, a lawyer representing an illegal immigrant detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that federal immigration law requires a bond hearing for illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. Tan and DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign offered differing opinions on what the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, a 1996 law outlining immigration detention procedures, states about Trump’s mandatory detention policy.
Ensign argued the 1996 law removed the right to a bond hearing for people detained in the interior of the country, placing illegal immigrants detained at a port of entry and those detained in the interior under the same standard of mandatory detention.
“Congress specifically sought to eliminate this preferential treatment for illegal actions in IIRIRA, and I think that’s a policy choice that should be respected here,” Ensign argued.
Tan argued that while the IIRIRA enacted mandatory detention for illegal immigrants who committed crimes, it did not expand that mandatory detention to illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. He cast doubt on the DOJ’s view by arguing the Trump administration is attempting to claim an authority that “somehow escaped everyone’s notice for the last 30 years.”
“What the executive is doing is abandoning the choice Congress made in order to advance its own policy goals, and it’s doing that despite more than 370 federal judges rejecting government overreach,” Tan told the appeals court panel.
Tan’s position was met with …
This affects the entire country.
Another federal appeals court could hand President Donald Trump a victory in his legal war over mandatory detention for illegal immigration, as a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit appeared friendly to the administration’s stance during arguments on Thursday.
The Trump administration won a key legal victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this month, when the appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s illegal immigrant mandatory detention policy, rejecting claims by opponents of the administration that bond hearings are required for illegal immigrants. The ruling was the first time an appeals court had upheld the policy, after the administration faced hundreds of losses in federal district courts, as the problem inches closer to the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit, which comprises mostly Republican-appointed judges, appeared skeptical of the arguments from Michael Tan, a lawyer representing an illegal immigrant detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that federal immigration law requires a bond hearing for illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. Tan and DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign offered differing opinions on what the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, a 1996 law outlining immigration detention procedures, states about Trump’s mandatory detention policy.
Ensign argued the 1996 law removed the right to a bond hearing for people detained in the interior of the country, placing illegal immigrants detained at a port of entry and those detained in the interior under the same standard of mandatory detention.
“Congress specifically sought to eliminate this preferential treatment for illegal actions in IIRIRA, and I think that’s a policy choice that should be respected here,” Ensign argued.
Tan argued that while the IIRIRA enacted mandatory detention for illegal immigrants who committed crimes, it did not expand that mandatory detention to illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. He cast doubt on the DOJ’s view by arguing the Trump administration is attempting to claim an authority that “somehow escaped everyone’s notice for the last 30 years.”
“What the executive is doing is abandoning the choice Congress made in order to advance its own policy goals, and it’s doing that despite more than 370 federal judges rejecting government overreach,” Tan told the appeals court panel.
Tan’s position was met with …
Eighth Circuit may give Trump another win on mandatory immigration detention
This affects the entire country.
Another federal appeals court could hand President Donald Trump a victory in his legal war over mandatory detention for illegal immigration, as a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit appeared friendly to the administration’s stance during arguments on Thursday.
The Trump administration won a key legal victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this month, when the appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s illegal immigrant mandatory detention policy, rejecting claims by opponents of the administration that bond hearings are required for illegal immigrants. The ruling was the first time an appeals court had upheld the policy, after the administration faced hundreds of losses in federal district courts, as the problem inches closer to the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit, which comprises mostly Republican-appointed judges, appeared skeptical of the arguments from Michael Tan, a lawyer representing an illegal immigrant detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that federal immigration law requires a bond hearing for illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. Tan and DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign offered differing opinions on what the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, a 1996 law outlining immigration detention procedures, states about Trump’s mandatory detention policy.
Ensign argued the 1996 law removed the right to a bond hearing for people detained in the interior of the country, placing illegal immigrants detained at a port of entry and those detained in the interior under the same standard of mandatory detention.
“Congress specifically sought to eliminate this preferential treatment for illegal actions in IIRIRA, and I think that’s a policy choice that should be respected here,” Ensign argued.
Tan argued that while the IIRIRA enacted mandatory detention for illegal immigrants who committed crimes, it did not expand that mandatory detention to illegal immigrants detained in the interior of the country. He cast doubt on the DOJ’s view by arguing the Trump administration is attempting to claim an authority that “somehow escaped everyone’s notice for the last 30 years.”
“What the executive is doing is abandoning the choice Congress made in order to advance its own policy goals, and it’s doing that despite more than 370 federal judges rejecting government overreach,” Tan told the appeals court panel.
Tan’s position was met with …
