“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Several longtime resident immigrants challenged their detention without bond by the Trump administration.
What happened in this case?
A provision of immigration law (Section 1225) denies bond hearings to “aliens seeking admission” to the country unless they are entitled beyond a doubt to be admitted. This law has always been applied to people entering the country. But the Trump administration claims that even longtime residents who are undocumented are “aliens seeking admission” and therefore ineligible for a bond hearing. This redefinition has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of judges to consider it and will be decided by the Supreme Court later this term. But since the Fifth Circuit adopted that reading of the statute earlier this year due to the deciding vote of Trump judge Kyle Duncan, it is the law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
In the current case, Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, three longtime residents argue that their indefinite detention violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel, and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado each entered the country without documentation over a decade ago and has lived here ever since. They have no criminal history. Their children are American citizens. Each had a routine traffic stop that turned into detention with no chance for release on bond. And in each case, a federal district judge ruled that the indefinite detention violated their Due Process rights.
Last July, a three-judge panel agreed, over the dissent of Trump judge Cory Wilson. But a week later, the full circuit voted to hold new oral arguments so the issue could be decided by the court en banc.
How did the Trump judges rule?
In a 10-6 vote made possible by the court’s six Trump judges – Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, James Ho, Andrew Oldham, Don Willett, and Cory Wilson – the court ruled in favor of the Trump administration.
Wilson wrote the majority opinion concluding that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to any more due process than they are getting. He argued that since they are undocumented, they don’t have the same rights to physical liberty that U.S. citizens have.
Wilson also blamed the immigrants for their loss of liberty. He wrote that they can end their detention “at any moment by agreeing to leave the country.”
Wilson also ruled that there is no constitutional time limit to how long the Trump administration can hold the immigrants without bond, as long as removing them to another country is “a viable prospect.”
What else did the Trump judges say?
In addition to joining the majority, opinion, Judge Ho and Oldham each wrote a concurrence making additional arguments.
Ho wrote that the detention of the plaintiffs is “further bolstered today by the war power,” since Trump has said that “an invasion is ongoing at the southern border.” He characterized the plaintiffs’ petitions contesting the constitutionality of their ongoing detention as “profoundly un-American” because they send a message that undocumented immigrants are “above the law.”
And Oldham condemned what he called the dissent’s “melodramatic assertion that Americans now must travel the interior of the country with their passports in hand.”
What did the dissenters, including Biden Judge Douglas, say in dissent?
Bush Judge Leslie Southwick, who wrote the original panel decision, wrote a dissenting opinion. Among other things, he explained that just because “an alien has no right to be let in [does not mean that] an alien living here has no right to be let out of confinement even when the Government cannot justify the detention.” He criticized the majority for essentially ruling that an immigrant must be lawfully admitted to the country before they have a constitutional right to Due Process.
Biden Judge Dana Douglas also wrote a dissent. She said:
A country where a roaming police force must seek out millions of noncitizens for mandatory detention without meaningful process or recourse to even a rudimentary hearing is a less decent place for people like Petitioners who have led law-abiding lives, committed no crimes, and raised United States citizens. It is also a less lawful place for those of us who prefer to travel the interior of this country without having to be prepared to show that we are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” at any time, as if we were crossing the border every time we walk down the street.
Why is the result harmful?
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case increases the harm being experienced by a community that is already living in terror, especially those in the Fifth Circuit states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It shows the importance of fair-minded judges to protecting the rights and freedom of all people.