SCOTUS Ruling Stuns

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 20 Mar 2019
UPDATED: 5:39 PM 20 Mar 2019

Supreme Court Rules In Criminal Immigrant Detention Case

Upholding the rule of law, SCOTUS smacked down the ninth circuit court ruling in a 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court ruled against a class action suit that would have protected immigrant criminals.

In a stunning victory that is getting very little coverage by the mainstream media, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration can hold criminal immigrants at any time as they await deportation.

In fact, SCOTUS smacked down the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, saying that its ‘interpretation’ of the law was “wrong.”

The case involved a special immigrant who ‘served his time’ according to the liberals backing him.

Mony Preap, who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, is a lawful permanent resident. But, he is also a criminal who had two drug convictions, which meant it qualified him for mandatory detention.

He served jail time for the drug charges in 2006. But, he wasn’t detained until he was released from jail on another offense in 2013. That crime wasn’t ‘deportable.’

The Ninth Circuit ruled that he should not be detained unless it happened directly after being released from jail.

However, in a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS reversed that decision, saying that the mandatory detention requirement for certain immigrants who become criminals has nothing to do with the time frame.

In delivering the decision, Justice Samuel Alito said “If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,” he said.

“Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

In an unsurprising dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said he disagreed with the majority’s factual interpretation of the law.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said.

“In my view, the Court should interpret the words of this statute to reflect Congress’ likely intent, an intent that is consistent with our basic values.”

Interpreting ‘likely intent’ only works for liberals when they want to choose what sort of likely intent they’re talking about.

These same Justices don’t agree about the likely intent of the Second Amendment, which is a much more important law than something regarding criminal immigrants.

Being able to punish immigrants who come to America and then use that gift as a way to commit crimes is crucial for the country.

Many people argue that for too long,  America has been a push over.

The unprotected border allows hordes of criminal aliens to swarm over the border, and with the Ninth Circuit court’s ruling, immigrants didn’t have to worry about being deported if they became criminals.

However, that class action case has been stopped in its tracks.

Immigrants who want to live the American dream legally are welcome. People who use their status to commit crimes… not.