Supreme Court Rules Against Migrants’ Rights To Bond Hearings In Detention + 2nd amendment

Quick overview -
* - Illegal aliens do NOT have a right to bail/bond after illegal aliens were in detention for 6+ months.
* - 2nd Amendment case / clarification - conceal carry, magazine size / # of bullets and restrictive state laws on conceal carry.



Supreme Court Rules Against Migrants’ Rights To Bond Hearings In Detention

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a crucial ruling against migrants.

The nation’s highest court ruled that illegal aliens detained for six months do not have the legal right to a bond hearing for release.

“The decision addressed two separate cases involving three illegal aliens, two of which were Mexican nationals that entered the U.S. illegally after being previously deported. After they were detained, they filed a putative class action for a bond hearing after six months of detention,” the Daily Caller reported.

“The third illegal alien was from El Salvador and also reentered the country illegally after being previously deported. He also sued in Washington federal court for a bond hearing. The case was brought to the high court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight,” the outlet added.

In an 8-1 ruling that brought together the conservative and liberal wings of the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the law is silent on the point.

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Sotomayer stated in her opinion.

The case was brought to Court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight.

2nd Amendment case - The Heller ruling in 2008 never answered the question on a persons right to defend themselves in public with a gun. It only dealt with in the home defense. This was finally answered.

The Supreme Court also issued its most significant pro-Second Amendment decision in nearly two decades when justices ruled 6-3 that New York’s concealed carry law was unconstitutionally restrictive.

The ruling, experts say, is significant because it means similarly restrictive concealed carry laws, limited primarily to blue states, are also likely to be successfully challenged.

“This decision is a big deal,” MPR noted. “Previously, the court had only said that the Constitution protected the ability to have a gun inside the home for self-defense. In that decision, which came down in 2008, the justices didn’t rule on how guns carried outside the home could be regulated. It took almost 15 years for the justices to come back to that question, but now they have.”

The Second Amendment “protect[s] an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion for Thursday’s ruling. As such, FiveThirtyEight continued, statues like the one in New York, “which required people who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have a good reason, are no longer allowed.”

The analysis goes on to predict a “flood” of new litigation in states with similarly restrictively concealed carry laws.

2nd Amendment case #2 - Scotus opened the flood gates to challenge restrictive gun laws, mainly from blue states. Scotus also ordered lower courts / appeals courts to revisit previous rulings in light of the recent 2nd Amendment Scotus rulings

But this major case wasn’t the high court’s only Second Amendment ruling, and in fact, SCOTUS likely opened the door to much of the expected new litigation.

“The Supreme Court said Thursday that gun cases involving restrictions in Hawaii, California, New Jersey and Maryland deserve a new look following its major decision in a gun case last week,” the Western Journal reported Thursday.

“In light of last week’s ruling — which said that Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home — lower courts should take another look at several cases that had been awaiting action by the high court, the court said. Those cases include ones about high-capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban and a state law that limits who can carry a gun outside the home,” the outlet reported, noting that by sending the cases back to lower courts, these laws will now get a second look under the new standard applied in Thomas’ majority decision.

One of the cases the justices sent back to a lower court Thursday involved a Hawaii statute similar to New York’s. In that case, a panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 2021 that the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution’s Second Amendment “does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.” But the high court said in its latest gun case that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” A lower court will now have to revisit the Hawaii ruling.

SCOTUS also instructed federal appeals courts to take a new look at laws in California and New Jersey that put limits on the number of rounds a magazine can hold.

In 2018, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed Democrat-passed legislation that limits magazines to 10 rounds of ammunition rather than the 15-round limit that had been in place since 1990.

So it seems Scotus is finally starting to do their job protecting the Constitution from the lefts attempt to destroy it and erode the rights of citizens. Better late than never is a good thing in my mind.

Well let's see if the Governor of New Jersey wipes her a$$ with the Constitution again.

a reply to: JIMC5499

If he does one can only hope for an infected paper cut that puts an end to these attacks on the Constitution.

a reply to: Xcathdra

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Sotomayer stated in her opinion."

Odd - none of the illegals I've seen in photos, and there have been many of them, look unhappy at all -
quite the reverse, they appear to be more than well-fed, and with shining new cell phones they are screaming into.

Which reminds me, How do they charge all those cell phones if they're so busy running from persecution and torture?

LOL

a reply to: RonnieJersey

You are allowing facts to get in the way of Democrats reality.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: RonnieJersey
a reply to: Xcathdra

Great, now can the court rule to put them all on buses and planes from NJ back to mexico??

They already did, several times, over the years. Dems / Libs dont comply with Scotus rulings.

Oh - and if that was Trump or the Republicans refusing to comply, there would be hell to pay and the media would be blasting them!

a reply to: RonnieJersey

Right now the left needs to accept the fact that Bidens administration took up the case that the Trump administration started resulting in the ruling against bail/bond.

I am sure they will find something else to bitch about and blame Trump for it.

Obviously the dems will pack the court after the midterm electi…um…er…

I always wondered how "Legal" it is for U.S. Authorities to assume a "Country of Origin" for a claimant without any vetted ID to prove what their "Country of Origin" is. That alone may be a loophole for an Asylum claim 😳

a reply to: Xcathdra

dem ones will start trying to stack the court now for sure. SCOTUS is kicking their a@@.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What do you make of NY and CA clearly violating their citizens rights in absolute disregard for the recent SCOTUS rulings?

originally posted by: RonnieJersey
a reply to: Xcathdra

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Sotomayer stated in her opinion."

Odd - none of the illegals I've seen in photos, and there have been many of them, look unhappy at all -
quite the reverse, they appear to be more than well-fed, and with shining new cell phones they are screaming into.

Which reminds me, How do they charge all those cell phones if they're so busy running from persecution and torture?

LOL

what company/brand is supplying the phones, cords, ear buds, cases, chargers?



so let me get this right,

3 illegals who have already been deported once, want bail and be able to carry a gun?

that means they are wanted criminals in their countries,

too bad, let them take care of their own scumbags.

a reply to: JinMI

It's their funeral... At some point I can see Scotus sending in US Marshall's to arrest a governor who is blatantly violating a Court ruling. What is it Dems like to say - no one is above the law.

a reply to: sarahvital

They want bail / bond..

I have no idea what your talking about them wanting guns. Foreign nationals (in almost all cases but there are exceptions) cannot own / posses a firearm. Unless you read to far into the thread title. Every time I tried to clarify the title it was too large to post.

a reply to: JIMC5499

My Governor is a Man , at Least I Think so ...............Hmm..........

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

It's their funeral... At some point I can see Scotus sending in US Marshall's to arrest a governor who is blatantly violating a Court ruling. What is it Dems like to say - no one is above the law.

Its not only govenors, its DAs and judges, even circuit judges.

Even of the marshalls arrested them, still has to go through the same executive branch that is pushing for this.

a reply to: JinMI

Actually it doesn't need to go through the DOJ or a state prosecutor. Pissing off a judge, at any level, can result in Contempt of Court. A judge can send a person to jail (I think the record for contempt was 14 years and a higher court stepped in and had the person released). Contempt of Court issues are the sole prerogative of the court. The weird thing with Contempt of Court is the person in trouble is said to hold the keys to their cell. Due process is limited, jury trials are not available and there is no beyond a reasonable doubt / preponderance of evidence requirements (for Contempt of COURT only).

There are 2 contempt possibilities (for Courts) - Civil and Criminal.
It is further broken down into Direct Contempt and Indirect Contempt.

Direct occurs in the judges presence. Indirect does not but the person in question still violates the order of the court (judge).

The Contempt you are thinking of is Contempt of Congress. That requires the DOJ to prosecute Criminal Contempt of Congress. A civil contempt of Congress does not need the DOJ to prosecute it and falls back to the person making the contempt claim to prove his/her case. Thats how Republicans got Obama's AG Eric Holder. Since Obamas DOJ wouldnt prosecute a criminal contempt of Congress against Holder, Republicans went down the civil contempt path. Holder was found guilty.

There are differing procedures, especially at the state level and does vary from state to state. The info I provided applies to the Federal level only.


Cornell Law - Contempt of Court
Wiki - Contempt of Court - United States

Longest ever Contempt of Court - 14 years

July 17, 2009 -- A 73-year-old Philadelphia lawyer walked out of prison July 10 after serving 14 years for contempt of court -- the longest term ever served for contempt.

There are a bunch of videos on youtube that shows people being held in contempt. They are all state cases so keep the in mind. You can see people being thrown in jail for contempt and some of those people were given up to a year. They show the next day the person found in contempt is brought back before the judge and they usually apologize and are released.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Scotus putting people in contempt?

Hadnt thought of that.

Yea, that could do it.

ETA.
Contempt hadnt crossed my mind.

To don abit of tinfoil on the notion, should you need markers for identifying civil strife, that would certainly be one.