A member of the u. S. Commission of civil rights. Watch landmark cases live monday at 9 00 eastern on cspan, cspan. Org, or listen with the free cspan radio app. For background on each case, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book didnt it is available for 8. 95 plus. Hipping and hand for an additional resource, there is additional link on the constitution. Cspan,g up tonight on at 10 00 p. M. Eastern, Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell testifies before the house andncial Services Committee a conversation on Monetary Policy with former fed chairs janet yellen and ben bernanke. Later, the october 2017 Supreme Court oral argument in jennings v. Rodriguez. The court ruled today that detained immigrants dont have the right to timely bond hearings. The Supreme Court ruled 53 that immigrants being detained are not entitled to a timely bond hearing. The ruling pertained to the jennings v. Rodriguez case regarding lengthy detentions for individuals facing deportation. 2017 orale
United states are simply two sides of the same coin. In practical effect respondents assert a constitutional right to be released into this country for the remainder of the removal proceedings if those proceedings last more than six months and the government cannot prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. This makes clear respondents have no such right. If i may, id like to begin with the arriving alien subclass, the statutory provision most directly at issue for these purposes is at page 152a of the petition appendix. This one deals particularly with what i think is the most important subset of the arriving alien subclass, individuals who come to the country for the first time, they pass a credible screening for asylum purposes, and then placed in removal proceedings. Near the top of page 152a, it says if the asylum officer determines at the time of the interview the alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be detained for further considera
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. This court has often stretched the breath of Constitutional Authority to establish the rules under which aliens will be allowed to enter and remann in the United States. This case squarely implicates that principle. During proceedings the question whether a certified class will be detained or allowed into the United States are simply two sides of the same coin. In practical effect respondents assert a constitutional right to be released into this country for the remainder of the removal proceedings if those proceedings last more than six months and the government cannot prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. This makes clear respondents have no such right. Id like to begin with the alien subclass, the statutory provision most directly at issue for these purposes is 152a of the petition appendix. This one deals particularly with what i think is the most important subset of the arriving alien subcla
Authority to establish the rules under which aliens will be allowed to enter and remann in the United States. This case squarely implicates that principle. During proceedings the question whether a certified class will be detained or allowed into the United States are simply two sides of the same coin. In practical effect respondents assert a constitutional right to be released into this country for the remainder of the removal proceedings if those proceedings last more than six months and the government cannot prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. This makes clear respondents have no such right. Id like to begin with the alien subclass, the statutory provision most directly at issue for these purposes is 152a of the petition appendix. This one deals particularly with what i think is the most important subset of the arriving alien subclass, individuals who come to the country for the first time, they pass a credible screening for asylum purposes and then