Third Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Prolonged Detention Of Immigrants Is Unconstitutional.
Third Circuit rules prolonged detention of immigrants unconstitutional
Hillary Stemple
A three-judge panel sitting for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled ruled Thursday that immigrants who are imprisoned while fighting deportation cannot be held indefinitely without a bail hearing and that the government must justify the need for the prolonged detention. The ruling (read the opinion here) came in an appeal of a district court decision brought by Senegalese native Cheikh Diop who was detained for two years and 11 months pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) [8 USC ยง 1226].
IIRIRA requires that any immigrant who has committed a crime involving "moral turpitude" or a crime involving a controlled substance be taken into custody pending removal. Diop was detained on the basis of a 2005 conviction in state court for reckless endangerment and on a 1995 conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
The court acknowledged that the statute does not provide for the possibility of release on bond and does not require the government to justify the detention, but ruled that because it is presumed that Congress does not intend to pass unconstitutional laws, "the statute implicitly authorizes detention for a reasonable amount of time, after which the authorities must make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary to fulfill the statute's purposes." The court also ruled that:
In this case, there can be no question that Diop's detention for nearly three years without further inquiry into whether it was necessary to ensure his appearance at the removal proceedings or to prevent a risk of danger to the community, was unreasonable and, therefore, a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Diop was released in February after numerous court appearances. During the court proceedings surrounding Diop's case, it was determined that his 2005 conviction was not serious enough to fall under the statute, and his 1995 conviction was vacated in light of the US Supreme Court ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky (read the Kentucky Supreme Court opinion here). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], which submitted a brief on behalf of Diop as amicus curiae, praised the ruling [press release] and urged the US government to use the ruling as a basis for changing current detention practices.
Hillary Stemple
A three-judge panel sitting for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled ruled Thursday that immigrants who are imprisoned while fighting deportation cannot be held indefinitely without a bail hearing and that the government must justify the need for the prolonged detention. The ruling (read the opinion here) came in an appeal of a district court decision brought by Senegalese native Cheikh Diop who was detained for two years and 11 months pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) [8 USC ยง 1226].
IIRIRA requires that any immigrant who has committed a crime involving "moral turpitude" or a crime involving a controlled substance be taken into custody pending removal. Diop was detained on the basis of a 2005 conviction in state court for reckless endangerment and on a 1995 conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
The court acknowledged that the statute does not provide for the possibility of release on bond and does not require the government to justify the detention, but ruled that because it is presumed that Congress does not intend to pass unconstitutional laws, "the statute implicitly authorizes detention for a reasonable amount of time, after which the authorities must make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary to fulfill the statute's purposes." The court also ruled that:
In this case, there can be no question that Diop's detention for nearly three years without further inquiry into whether it was necessary to ensure his appearance at the removal proceedings or to prevent a risk of danger to the community, was unreasonable and, therefore, a violation of the Due Process Clause.
Diop was released in February after numerous court appearances. During the court proceedings surrounding Diop's case, it was determined that his 2005 conviction was not serious enough to fall under the statute, and his 1995 conviction was vacated in light of the US Supreme Court ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky (read the Kentucky Supreme Court opinion here). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], which submitted a brief on behalf of Diop as amicus curiae, praised the ruling [press release] and urged the US government to use the ruling as a basis for changing current detention practices.
Labels: Constitutional Rights, The Constitution
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home