Fifth Circuit Court reiterates that Federal authorities can detain illegals during appeals.
- Feb 7
- 2 min read
Court tells District Court Judges that they need to stay out of the Habeas business when it comes to immigration detainment.
I think two things come to mind when I see this ruling. The first is that this is nothing new. Apellate Courts (as well as the USSC) have ruled against District Courts using Habeas to non-citizen detainees over and over again. The second thing that comes to mind is that this is coming to Minnesota as well. If the Fifth Circuit Court ruled this way, then the Eighth Circuit Court will rule the same way, and it is almost certain that the USSC will confirm the ruling.
There have been hundreds of these rulings in Minnesota (800-900) and they judges have ruled pretty much exclusively for the detainees. Moreover, these judges are not just ruling against the Federal Government, but they are setting impossible timelines and standards for release and threatening contempt charges against the Government. Keep in mind that each of these judges know that their decisions are on shaky legal ground and likely to be eventually overturned. But it doesn't stop them from abusing their legal authority as often as they can. They are, by indisputable fact, ignoring precedent that suggests they do not have authority to rule on these cases while chastising the Government for not following their likely illegal order. This is hubris and hypocrisy in the one of the most crooked and extreme manners possible.
So what happens in the future here?
Well, when the dust settles and either the Eight Circuit Court or the USSC confirms this particular case, all of those arrested and released from Minnesota will be subject to another arrest and this time for long term detainment. This just means that ICE will have to extend their stay and go find and arrest the same people again. I am sure this will make the people in Minnesota extremely happy. Everything they are currently doing is really making it harder for ICE to finish a job that they will finish with or without Walz's political support.
Lastly, these lawsuits drain money and resources from both the plaintiff and government, which seams pointless given the ultimate reality that it is a temporary victory. Sure, it is possible that some of these people just disappear in order to not be arrested again, but that seems like a hollow victory. People living in the shadows does not a good community make.
After reading the statutes for myself, I now see that the two years is red herring and only applies to two different conditions within 1225. One is immediate deportation and the other is a hearing for sake of determining asylum, but neither condition allows for a bail hearing under 1225. 1226 allows for it, but any movement from 1225 to 1226 appears discretionary by the Government. Obviously, we know what previous administrations decided to do.
So we seem to back to the semantic argument as to whether they are people who qualify as:
An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of…
I do see some logic in the dissent here.
That 1225 is in regard to people caught at the border or people who turned themselves in and those who are seeking admission or applied for admission. There seems to be a struggle to determine if those two things are the same.
1226 seems to be written for people who have been in the country possibly legally but overstayed their visa and situations like that, but it also refers to people apprehended sometime after the fact. So again, there appears to be overlap where some people will see application to both laws. 1225 seems to be mandatory, while 1226 seems to be more discretionary. In other words, you catch them at…
In the 2-1 decision, it would appear that all three judges appear to mostly agree on the law but disagree on whether or not the Trump administration's decision to enforce it differently than past administrations should be taken into account. In other words, the dissent here is about how previous administration policy was different and that it has set a non-legal precedent that should be followed because... well... because it is a better policy.
One of two federal statutes in the Immigration and Naturalization Act at issue is 8 U.S. Code §1225, which applies to “applicants for admission.” A provision of the statute states that “an alien seeking admission” who is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” must…