华盛顿-最高法院已经否决了那些在反对驱逐令的同时寻求从长期拘留中释放的移民。
在周一裁决的两起案件中，法院表示，根据联邦法律，担心被遣返回国会受到迫害的移民无权参加保释听证会，无论他们被关押多久，他们都可以在听证会上为自己的自由辩护。
大法官还以6比3的票数限制了移民在法庭上团结一致的能力，大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔写道，这一结果“将使许多脆弱的非公民无法保护自己的权利。”
近年来，高等法院越来越限制移民利用联邦法院系统移居1990年代和2000年代颁布的措施。
“有一段时间，法院似乎要推迟一点。芝加哥大学法学院移民权利诊所主任妮可·哈雷特说:“在极端情况下，它会尽可能多地解释法规，允许司法审查。”。“现在很明显，法院不再愿意这么做了。”READ MORE
那些申请保释听证会的移民将面临数月甚至数年的拘留，直到他们的案件得到解决。
法院在墨西哥和萨尔瓦多人说服国土安全部官员相信他们的担心是可信的案件中做出裁决，赋予他们进一步审查的权利。
他们的律师认为，他们应该在移民法官面前举行听证会，以决定他们是否应该被释放。主要因素是人们是否会构成危险，或者如果被释放是否会逃跑。
索托马约尔在涉及安东尼奥·阿尔蒂加-马丁内斯的一个案件中写下了法院的意见，此前他已被驱逐到墨西哥。他四年前被拘留，并在联邦法院审理他的案件时获得释放。他能否留在美国的听证会定于2023年举行。
但索托马约尔写道，适用于阿尔蒂加-马丁内斯等人的移民法条款根本不需要政府举行债券听证会。
然而，法院对移民是否有能力争辩说宪法不允许这种不经审讯的无限期拘留的问题未作决定。
塞缪尔·阿利托法官写下了法院的意见，认为联邦法官只能对他们面前的移民案件进行裁决，而不能对一类处境相似的人进行裁决。
索托马约尔不同意这一决定，斯蒂芬·布雷耶和埃琳娜·卡根法官也表示反对。她写道，对于那些无权聘请律师的人，以及“不太可能熟悉美国法律体系或流利使用英语”的人来说，一起上课的能力尤为重要。
这两个案例是约翰逊诉阿尔蒂加-马丁内斯案，第19-896页，和加兰诉埃勒曼-冈萨雷斯案，第20-322页。
Justices rule against detained immigrants seeking release
WASHINGTON --The Supreme Court has ruled against immigrants who are seeking their release from long periods of detention while they fight deportation orders.
In two cases decided Monday, the court said that the immigrants, who fear persecution if sent back to their native countries, have no right under a federal law to a bond hearing at which they could argue for their freedom no matter how long they are held.
The justices also ruled 6-3 to limit the immigrants ability to band together in court, an outcome that Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote “will leave many vulnerable noncitizens unable to protect their rights.”
In recent years, the high court has taken an increasingly limited view of immigrants' access to the federal court system underimmigrationmeasures enacted in the 1990s and 2000s.
“For a while, it seemed like the court was going to push back a bit. In extreme cases, it would interpret a statute to allow for as much judicial review as possible,”said Nicole Hallet, director of the immigrants rights clinic at the University of Chicago law school. “Clearly now, the court is no longer willing to do that.”
The immigrants who sued for a bond hearing are facing being detained for many months, even years, before their cases are resolved.
The court ruled in the cases of people from Mexico and El Salvador who persuaded Homeland Security officials that their fears are credible, entitling them to further review.
Their lawyers argued that they should have a hearing before an immigration judge to determine if they should be released. The main factors are whether people would pose a danger or are likely to flee if set free.
Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion in one case involving Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, who had previously been deported to Mexico. He was taken into custody four years ago, and won release while his case wound through the federal courts. His hearing on whether he can remain in the United States is scheduled for 2023.
But Sotomayor wrote that the provision of immigration law that applies to people like Arteaga-Martinez simply doesn't require the government to hold a bond hearing.
The court, however, left open the issue of the immigrants' ability to argue that the Constitution does not permit such indefinite detention without a hearing.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's opinion holding that federal judges can only rule in the case of the immigrants before them, not a class of similarly situated people.
Sotomayor dissented from that decision, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. She wrote that the ability to join together in a class was especially important for people who have no right to a lawyer and “are disproportionately unlikely to be familiar with the U.S. legal system or fluent in the English language.”
The cases are Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 19-896, and Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 20-322.
