Nielsen v. Preap

We'll hear argument first this morning in case 161363, Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security v.

Preap.

Hey everyone, this is Leon Nayfok from Fiasco and Slowburn.

On today's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about Nielsen v.

Priap, a 2019 case that allows the Department of Homeland Security to detain undocumented immigrants who have committed certain crimes for months or even years without ever allowing them a bond hearing.

I mean, they were arrested 14 years after being released.

One for taking bus transfers.

To me, that isn't a parade of possible future horribles.

Those are the horribles.

This is Five to Four, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Do you have your metaphor?

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I just wrote it a second ago.

Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have slowly ravaged America, like the Mongol invasions of Central Asia.

I am

Peter.

Twitter's the lawboy.

I'm here with Michael.

Hey, everybody.

And Rhiannon.

Hello, my friends.

Was the Mongol invasion slow?

I'm not really familiar with that.

Is that Genghis Khan?

They were over time.

Genghis Kublai.

I've been playing a lot of Ghost of Tsushima.

Oh,

that's what it is.

The only thing I know about the Mongol invasion was that they had horses, right?

Oh, yeah, that's their big thing.

Yeah.

The innovation back then.

That's what I remember from when I used to read about them in Carta.

The encyclopedia, yes.

I used to look up animals.

I read about blue-footed boobies.

You could only look up like the basics.

It was like Mount Everest, yeah.

You can learn about that.

Kilimanjaro, maybe.

All right.

Hold on.

Okay.

All right.

Today's episode is Nielsen v.

Preap.

This is a case about whether the government can indefinitely detain immigrants who committed a crime, even if that crime occurred decades in the past and they already served their time.

This was a...

five to four decision from last year, 2019, with the majority written by our little buddy, Sam Alito.

And I gotta say, reading this opinion, absolute torture.

It's bad.

Not only is it the cause of much needless cruelty, but Alito spends the opinion with his head like alternately buried in a dictionary and up his own ass.

It's like truly an insufferable read where the court engages in pedantic and tortured explorations of, for example, the definition of the word the

and remedial-level explanations of the function of adverbs.

When you're reading it, you wonder whether you are reading a Supreme Court decision or if, in fact, you are in some sort of purgatory, lost to the world and cursed to eternal tedium.

You wonder whether you've been reading the opinion for a few minutes or if perhaps it has been weeks.

You wonder whether you are staring at the pages of the Supreme Court court reporter, or if you are staring directly into the eyes of a cruel and unforgiving God who has laid out in front of you a horizonless field of your own suffering.

So

it is bad, right?

It's so bad.

I can't believe I read this shit for this stupid shit.

Of all the cases we've read, this was like the most difficult just to like get through.

Yeah, no, no, no, no, absolute mental torture.

So yeah, this is about an immigration law.

And there's actually a ton going on in this decision.

There are a bunch of different legal questions.

There are a bunch of different opinions.

There's a huge amount of very convoluted analysis of different parts of the law.

But we're going to keep it nice and simple for you.

And we should give you a rundown up top.

Yeah.

There's a law called the We Hate Immigrants Act of 1996.

Now, my mistake.

It's the Apprehension and Detention of Aliens Act.

And part of it.

deals with what to do with aliens, both documented and undocumented, who commit certain crimes.

And by the way, alien is sort of the widely used legal term for non-citizens.

So we're going to end up using it a bunch here.

The court uses it throughout.

And we fully recognize that it's more than a bit othering, mostly because it literally means other.

Yep.

So we just want to give our listeners sort of a heads up here.

Yeah, yeah.

The language the law uses is often pretty disconnected from how normal human beings speak.

We're currently using the same word to describe Independence Day style alien invaders and people who come here from Guatemala.

Great.

Love that.

So if you are a non-citizen, aka an alien, and you commit a certain type of crime, and you are imprisoned for that crime, the law states that, quote, when the alien is released, unquote, from criminal custody, he or she can be indefinitely detained pending their deportation hearing.

And the central issue here is what when the alien is released actually means.

Does it mean right after they're released, or does it mean any time after they're released, so that the government can swoop in 10 or 15 years later after they've served their time and have built themselves a life and a family and detain them indefinitely?

If one of those sounds drastically less humane than the other, you can figure out which way the court went here.

The real lesson of this case isn't really about how wrong the court got it for once.

It's about the futility of assuming that you can, in an objective sense, correctly interpret the law and what the human cost of that assumption is and what we should be doing instead.

Yeah.

Right.

So, Rhiannon, teach us a little bit about immigration law and the poor folks who got caught up in it.

Yeah.

Sorry to bring you guys more bad news this week, but it's another shitty case

with a lot of terribly hurt people.

You know, welcome back to the show, everybody.

If we're ever going to do a good case,

we should change it up.

Maybe.

We did Bostock.

We did Bostock.

Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.

You're right.

Yeah.

We don't want to spoil our lessons.

One out of every 30 episodes.

All right, so for purposes of this case, I think we have to talk about like the immigration law background a little bit.

Like Peter said, it's super, super complicated, but just kind of looking at this case, we are talking about kind of two groups of immigrants who are facing removal proceedings.

In immigration law, the term removal proceedings means that you're facing deportation.

And so there are two groups of non-citizens who are facing deportation.

So the first group, the standard removable aliens, those people are non-citizens, immigrants who are facing deportation because of a variety of like the typical reasons that you might automatically or easily think of.

Like, say, if you were caught coming into the U.S.

and you don't have the necessary documentation to make your entry legal, like ICE has information that you're undocumented, they can pick you up, they will put you in ICE detention, which is jail, and then court proceedings start regarding whether you really are here unlawfully and whether you will be deported.

And in that case, while your removal proceedings are ongoing in court, you're in jail, but you are entitled to a bond hearing in which a judge can decide that you can be released, you know, if you pay a certain bail amount or something like that, that you can be released while you wait for the final decision on whether you will be deported.

You know, you'd be out on bond just like you were if you were awaiting trial on a criminal charge and you were out on bond.

Now, for the other group, the so-called criminal aliens, the circumstances around this immigration detention are different.

according to this law.

Criminal aliens are non-citizens who have been convicted of certain crimes while they were in the U.S.

And what this law establishes is that those people are subject to what's called a mandatory detention, which means that you will get picked up by ICE, you're put in immigration detention, but while your deportation proceedings are happening in court, you are not entitled to a bond hearing.

You're going to wait in jail until the court decides if you're going to be deported or not.

And so like a quick example, this might be like you're a lawful permanent resident.

A lot of times we refer to this as somebody who has their green card.

You get arrested one night for possession of marijuana, say, and you end up being found guilty of possession of marijuana in criminal court.

You go to jail.

That makes you a criminal alien, which means you are now subject to losing your permanent resident status and being deported.

So ICE can come pick you up after you've done your time on the marijuana charge.

But in this category, you are in mandatory detention.

So you do not have a bond hearing.

Now, waiting in ICE detention during removal proceedings is significant, I think, for two kind of broad reasons.

Number one, almost every person locked up by the government.

in the U.S.

is entitled by the Constitution to a bond hearing.

Constitutionally, if you're an accused triple axe murderer, you still get a hearing in court when you're arrested on whether you're going to get a bond or not, whether you can be released while you wait for the court proceedings to finish up.

And the other reason why waiting in ICE detention is significant here is that the removal proceedings, immigration court, these are not quick proceedings.

Immigration courts are notoriously and violently and inhumanely inefficient.

These courts, they process millions of cases.

There aren't enough immigration court judges.

Court dates are sometimes set years in the future, literal years.

So if you are a criminal alien under this law, you are literally caged for months or years while you wait for the deportation decision, and you're never entitled to a bond hearing.

So, to kind of better explain, we can talk about the specific cases of the people involved in Nielsen v.

Priap.

This is a class action lawsuit, actually.

It was originally brought by a few lead plaintiffs, but the argument they're making is for all of the criminal aliens subject to this mandatory detention scheme in California.

One of the lead plaintiffs is Moni Priap.

Mr.

Priap was born to Cambodian parents in a refugee camp, and he had lived in the U.S.

lawfully since 1981.

Now, in 2006, he was convicted of just misdemeanor possession of marijuana, which is one of the crimes that's on this list of crimes that for immigration purposes makes you a criminal alien.

So he finished his sentence on the marijuana charge.

But as it turns out, immigration authorities didn't arrest him right then when he was released.

They arrested him in 2013, seven years later, and they held him without bail until his deportation proceedings were finished.

Now, an important note here is that Mr.

Priyap was eligible for cancellation of removal, which means that he was not deported.

He was allowed to stay in the U.S.

at the end of those removal proceedings.

That monster still lives here?

Right, yeah.

That monster who in 2006 was convicted of having marijuana and then wasn't arrested by ICE until 2013.

Yeah.

This is why we needed Trump to come in here and clean this mess up.

Another one of the lead plaintiffs, Eduardo Vega Padilla, he arrived in the U.S.

as a toddler and had been a lawful permanent resident for 52 years.

I mean, this entire man's life, he's in the U.S., right?

He has six grandchildren, all of them U.S.

citizens.

But back in 1997, he was convicted of a couple of drug charges.

And then, after being convicted of possessing an unloaded gun, he was released finally from jail and prison and all of that stuff in 2002.

He served his time.

He moved on with his life.

Well, in 2013, I showed up at his house and arrested him, saying he's one of these criminal aliens now who has one of these criminal convictions on his record.

And under the law, he's subject to mandatory detention.

So he was also held without bond initially while he was waiting for the final decision on his removal proceedings.

But when he gets back to his home country, he'll be able to find a job by using some of the connections he established when he was a toddler.

Right, right.

When he was like a two-year-old more than 50 years ago, yeah.

This all just makes me think that, like, the actual law should be that if you've been in America for two weeks, you're a citizen now.

That's it.

If you're here on a long vacation,

that's cool.

You're a citizen.

You're one of us.

Congrats.

You get the little flag and the sticker or whatever they give you when you become a citizen, and that's it.

It's the Cuban treatment, man.

You get your foot on American soil.

There you go.

That's right.

If it's good enough for the Cubans, why not for everybody else?

So, yeah, this law applies to thousands of people who are in immigration custody at any given point in the United States.

And these are people who, by and large, have been here lawfully.

They've had some sort of run-in with the criminal law, but they've finished their sentences on those criminal charges.

At that point, sometime after their release, they're picked up by ICE.

And, you know, they might be deported or they might not be.

But unlike all other kinds of non-citizens who might be facing removal, and unlike every other criminally accused person in the country, this group is subject to this mandatory detention scheme where there's no chance of bail while they wait for their case to be resolved.

Right.

So they're separated from their family and their friends and their job.

And if they're like breadwinners, that means their family is without income and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah.

So this case is not about deportation or how immigrants get deported or why legally.

It's just about the government holding you indefinitely while you wait for your deportation decision.

Right, right.

All right, let's go to a fucking ad.

This episode of 5-4 is brought to you by Magic Spoon, the cereal for people on keto diets.

I'll be honest, I had to look this one up because I'm not your number one diet guy.

But now that I know the deal with Magic Spoon, I want to eat it, keto or not keto.

This is a cereal that will remind you of your childhood.

You loved your childhood.

That's why why you're listening to this podcast.

The best part is that Magic Spoon is super healthy.

It doesn't have sugar or gluten or grain in it.

It's been described as the first true keto innovation in the breakfast cereal market.

Someone said it reminded them of Dippin' Dots.

You love Dippin' Dots.

It's crazy that they could make it taste like this because of how healthy it is.

Magic Spoon has 0 grams of sugar, 11 grams of protein, and only 3 net grams of carbs in each serving.

It comes in 4 flavors, cocoa, fruity, frosted, and blueberry.

It's keto-friendly, gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, low-carb, and GMO-free.

Go to magicspoon.com slash 54 to grab a variety pack and try it today.

And be sure to use our promo code 54, that's all spelled out, at checkout to get free shipping.

And Magic Spoon is so confident in their product, it's backed with a 100% happiness guarantee.

So if you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund you your money, no questions asked.

That's magicspoon.com slash 54 and use the code 54 for free shipping.

We thank Magic Spoon for sponsoring the podcast.

This episode of 524 is brought to you by Helix Sleep.

Ever since my family and I got a Helix mattress, we've stopped sweating at night, we breathe better, and the only nightmare we've had was about Twitter's The Law Boy.

Helix Sleep sells personalized mattresses made right here in America and shipped straight to your door with free, no-contact delivery, free returns, and a 100-night sleep trial.

To choose a mattress, Helix made a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.

I took the quiz and was matched with the midnight mattress because I wanted something that was medium firm and was optimized for people who sleep on their sides.

Just go to helixleep.com slash 54, that's 54 all spelled out, and take their two-minute sleep quiz.

They'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.

They have a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.

They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.

Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixleep.com slash five four.

That's helixleep.com slash five four, all spelled out.

Once again, for up to two hundred dollars off, go to helixleep.com slash five four.

So, let's talk about the law.

Again, this is a law about the apprehension and detention of so-called aliens.

And it says that if an alien commits certain crimes, which we didn't get into it too much, but these crimes range from terrorism to misdemeanor, possession of marijuana, like the plaintiff.

Then, after the alien is released from custody, once they finish their prison sentence, the government can detain them without bond.

And the point of this is like pretty simple.

The government wants to be able to deport immigrants who are engaged in criminal activity.

So, after you serve your time, the government will detain you while you await the outcome of your immigration proceeding.

Yeah.

Like we said, this is about about whether or not these people get a bond hearing.

And the law says the alien doesn't get a bond hearing if the government picks them up, quote, when the alien is released from prison.

So the question of what that phrase means is important because it dictates whether or not they actually get that hearing.

Yeah.

And the opinion accordingly ends up revolving in large part around what exactly it means to arrest an alien, quote, when the alien is released.

Does that mean that it has to do so fairly quickly, or can it be done anytime after so that detaining Mr.

Padilla without bond 15 years after he was released is okay?

Right.

And the court says that it can be anytime after, meaning that ICE does nothing wrong when it swoops in years after the fact and holds them without a bail hearing.

Keep in mind, there is no question here that ICE can detain these people and they can be deported.

The only question is whether they can do so without giving them a bail hearing, forcing them to remain in custody indefinitely, which in practice, as Ree mentioned, can be months or years.

Right.

Right.

The way I think about it is like, how humanely do we have to treat these people?

Exactly.

How shittily can we treat people who were convicted of a crime?

Yeah.

Like we said, there's a lot going on in this opinion, but the heart of it is the court's analysis of this language we've mentioned, saying that these people can be detained without bond, quote, when the alien is released.

And so the court embarks upon an incredibly painful analysis of the meaning of this phrase.

Alito talks about whether adverbs can modify nouns and cracks open the dictionary to define the word the in when the alien is released.

I hate him with my life.

It is so bad.

It's so technical, yet like sloppily articulated.

I mean, it's just ungodly painful to read.

It is.

It's horrible.

Interestingly, Alito throws away the dictionary when it comes to defining the word when, asserting that, quote, when the alien is released was intended to mean any time after the alien was released.

Well, isn't that convenient?

And I don't want to get too deep into the reasoning used here because it's very convoluted.

It cross-references across this statute's like multiple different clauses.

But he basically talks about the structure of the statute and says that because an adverb cannot modify a noun, the term when released cannot modify the type of aliens identified by the law.

I mean

can someone Venmo me for fucking reading this?

It's so awful.

Oh man, it's it's truly bad.

So the law says when you read it through, quote, the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who commits certain crimes when the alien is released, end quote.

That is not a confusing sentence.

No.

The phrase when released is a description of the time at which the government can take aliens who commit those crimes into custody under the statute.

Right.

As the dissent written by Breyer points out, almost all definitions of the word when suggest some immediacy.

If you say, lock the door when you come inside, and I come inside and you're like, did you lock the door?

And I say, oh, no, but I was going to do it in 15 years, you'd be like, well, that doesn't, that's not what I was asking.

Right, exactly.

That doesn't really address my concerns.

Right.

So Alito is in a bind, right?

He has to explain this phrase away.

And what he says is that based on the structure of the law, the phrase when the alien is released isn't really relevant to whether or not they are eligible for a bail hearing.

Right.

And the dissent makes this point, and it's sort of intuitively obvious, which is like, if it's not relevant, then why is the phrase, you know, when the alien is released in the statute at all?

Right.

Peter, I think your example was really good about like lock the door when you come inside and the word when implying some sort of immediacy there and it not making sense otherwise.

What Alito's argument is, is that when means something more like, you'll be good at this when you get older.

Right.

Right.

And that doesn't make so much sense, that interpretation of the word when, when you're talking about Congress writing a statute that's about picking up people and putting them into custody, right?

It doesn't make so much logical sense to interpret it as just sort of amorphous whenever, some future date.

And you know, you might notice that we're not digging super deep into what Alito is actually saying here.

And that's for a couple of reasons.

One, it's super technical and complex.

We don't think that our listeners are smart enough to get it.

No,

it's like genuinely too complex to explain in podcast format.

But the second part is that, frankly, we don't think that the majority's reasoning here is like super off base.

I think that Alito's interpretation is awkward and it's worse than the dissent's interpretation, but it's not outrageous or anything.

Sure.

It's not one of those cases where you're like, this is just offensive.

Right, right.

It's a poorly written law.

It's confusing and disorganized.

And again, I think the dissent is more correct, but reasonable minds, I think, can differ here.

Sure.

And that brings us to a problem that, frankly, much of the legal profession is happy to pretend doesn't exist.

The task of the court is ostensibly to determine the quote-unquote correct interpretation of the law.

But what if there is no objectively correct answer?

Where does that leave the court?

If you are intellectually honest enough to admit to yourself that there is no objectively correct interpretation here, then you have to acknowledge that the only way to approach the question of how to interpret this law is by applying some sort of purposivistic, common sense-driven approach.

Yeah.

You need to think about what the law is intended to do, what its impact on people is, and maybe if you can see that there's no objectively correct interpretation of the law, you might try to find one that respects the human dignity of the people affected by it.

Yeah, just try it.

Basically, all that Alito says about the purpose of the law is that Congress wanted to be tougher on immigrants who committed certain crimes, which I think is more or less true, but it's interesting how readily conservatives are willing to refer to the intent of a law when that intent is just some racist bullshit, right?

Yes.

Yes.

So, you know, let's talk a bit about the purpose of this law.

Like we said, this isn't about whether the government can detain immigrants before their deportation hearings.

They absolutely can.

What this is about is whether an immigrant who is convicted of a crime, serves their time, is released, and then years later is picked up by ICE, whether that person is owed a bail hearing or whether he can be detained indefinitely in some fucking ICE-run concentration camp.

Exactly.

So the main purpose of a bail hearing is to allow a judge to analyze whether or not someone is either, one, too dangerous to be out in society, or two, a flight risk, right?

And that's really it.

And if someone, like in this case, served their time for a crime, settled down, started a family, and then led a peaceful and law-abiding life for over a decade, there's as close to a zero risk of danger or flight as you'll ever get.

And that, when you're talking about what outcome here makes sense, is the bottom line, right?

Give that guy a fucking bail hearing.

Right.

Exactly.

Let a judge determine it.

The point of bail hearings is to give give people who aren't a danger to society their freedom before they face trial, right?

And that's the moral difference here.

The choice between holding these people indefinitely, possibly for years, despite the fact that they pose no threat to society, and letting them go back to their lives until their deportation hearing can actually happen.

Yeah.

And so like in that sense, you know, what they say is like, look, the reason why this is mandatory detention is we don't think bail hearings are adequate for determining who is and and isn't like safe to re-release into the community here.

And look, that's maybe a fair reading.

Maybe that's the quote unquote right reading, like Peter said.

But again, like if you have 10 years of information of somebody re-entering society and setting down their

roots and making a life, then that situation is different.

Now you have more information available.

And that sort of goes to the indeterminacy of this.

Like Peter is saying, there's no right or wrong answer.

Situations suggest that that purpose isn't really served by denying these people bond hearings because it's different picking them up 15 years later than it is picking them up 15 minutes after they leave prison.

Exactly.

It's just a different scenario.

Yeah.

So if the text of the law is uncertain or convoluted, you're allowed to use your common sense.

You're allowed to look at the circumstances of these people and decide what the most reasonable outcome is.

The only people who don't want you to do that are people who insist on believing that the law is a means for finding objective truth.

Right.

And those people are deluded.

You're morally obligated to contextualize these cases because anything else divorces the application of the law from the ways in which it weighs upon human beings.

Yeah, exactly.

And that's what we're saying, like every episode of this.

Every goddamn episode,

every fucking episode of this goddamn

podcast.

We say that, you know, there's there's a moral imperative, actually, to interpret and use the law in a way that at least takes into account its effect on people, the material harm or good that it does on people, right?

And there's actually a part in the oral argument that highlights the point that you and Michael are making, Peter.

And it's a nice kind of like little example, I think, of legal realism, which is what we're talking about always.

The lawyer for the government, which is to say like a heartless ghoul, an extremely ugly person inside and out, he says during oral argument that, like, you know, we have to interpret the law this way.

We have to interpret the law to mean that DHS and ICE, they can come pick up these people anytime after release.

And whenever we pick them up, they're going to be in this mandatory detention.

And one reason he says we have to interpret the law this way is because, like, Congress wanted to protect the community from criminals.

And Justice Breyer actually asks a really good question, which is like, well, hold up.

The community is protected by providing bail hearings.

Like judges consider all of these factors.

They consider potential dangerousness in the community.

That's what they're considering during a bail hearing.

And they do it all the time.

But if we are reading the statute the way you government want us to read it, you heartless ghoul, Breyer says, quote, what you're doing to the individual is many who are no danger to the community.

You're depriving them of a hearing that could mean their release.

And what you're doing to the community, reading it your way, is nothing.

You'll have the bail hearing.

The dangerous people won't get out.

You see, in terms of the purposes of the bail statute or this statute or any other statute, if we read it technically your way, we hurt everybody in terms of the purposes.

But if we read it the opposite way, we hurt virtually nobody.

Right.

End quote.

And so like he's saying like, why?

You're asking us to read it in this weird technical way.

And the result of reading it that way is harm.

People get hurt.

And the purpose of the statute isn't harmed because if the purpose of the statute is to prevent dangerous people from being free in the community, well, a bail hearing satisfies that purpose.

But big surprise, the heartless ghoul does not have a good answer because spoiler alert, the purpose to them is harm and hurt.

That's right.

The cruelty is the point.

That's right.

And I want to make a note about government lawyers who are making these arguments.

Fuck you to hell.

I hope you fucking suffer.

That's my point.

If you're a government lawyer and you're like in front of the Supreme Court arguing in favor of ICE tactics,

you

easily could be at worst a top-tier associate at a big law firm, but more likely a partner bagging like between 400 grand and like 2 mill a year.

Government lawyers, on the other hand, are making tops like 150,

which means that that delta,

that's how much they hate people from Mexico and Central America, right?

Right, right.

Your soul is trash.

They will take that pay cut so that they can just inflict harm upon immigrants.

Awful.

These people are fucking vile.

Yeah.

Okay.

Pigs.

Figs.

Have you ever seen a government lawyer who was wearing a decently tailored suit?

Because I fucking haven't.

No.

Not once.

God, no.

All right, let's put a hold on this and and go to a quick ad.

Okay.

Breyer goes on in his dissent about the correct interpretation of the statute.

And like I said, I think it's fairly convincing.

But then he gets to what is, in my view, a much more important point, which is that the majority's interpretation seems a lot like it might violate the due process rights of these immigrants.

Yeah.

So for the record, between the majority and the concurrences and the dissent, this entire decision is 59 pages long.

And we get to page 50 before there's a real substantive discussion about whether these people are being treated fairly under the Constitution.

Love that.

So Breyer points out that while it's not certain, this opinion may well violate the rights of these individuals to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Yeah, there's a constitutional question.

Yeah.

Right.

It is, after all, allowing the government to detain people indefinitely, possibly for months or years at a time, without a hearing, and only because they committed a minor crime at some point in the distant past.

So, not only is this unjust on its face, it's less due process, like Re mentioned earlier, than is afforded to a mass murderer in this country.

Right.

Right.

And I think it's worth talking about indefinite detention a little bit because it's like a bedrock constitutional principle that the government can't indefinitely detain someone without any judicial process, right?

That's like the writ of habeas corpus was originally for in English common law, like people detained extrajudicially could petition the courts for the writ and make the government show that their detention was legal.

Right.

Yeah.

That's in the constitution that habeas corpus can't be suspended except in quote-unquote extraordinary circumstances such as civil war and invasion.

And you see it in like the Bill of Rights with a speedy trial right, right?

Like you can't just be held for years awaiting trial, at least in theory.

You can't be held indefinitely awaiting trial.

But it's also in the protections against double jeopardy, right?

Because if you could keep retrying people, you could keep them in jail pending trial over and over and over without like real process.

The warrant requirements for arrests.

So it's like built in.

Yeah, exactly.

And like even in the height of like the war on terror panic, 2003, 2004, the Supreme Court was not at all receptive to the Bush administration saying that they could hold enemy combatants indefinitely.

Yeah.

They extended habeas corporate protections to Guantanamo Bay.

They said that people accused of being enemy combatants had to have process to challenge that designation.

And so, like, this whole idea that like indefinitely detaining people without judicial process is like disfavored strongly should be the background against which we're reading this law.

Exactly.

That feels right.

The government snatching people up, throwing them in a hole, and throwing away the key is like so fucking obviously fascist that it just seems obvious on its face that the U.S.

can't do that.

Yeah.

But there are two big issues, which is that the conservatives on the court are all fucking fascists.

That is a major one.

Right, that's a big one.

Totally anathema to democracy, having the fascists on the court.

And the other is that immigration laws where the government has the most leeway to detain people for extended periods, even indefinitely, with limited or no judicial process.

We've talked about this before in our Trump v.

Hawaii episode, you know, going back to the 1880s when like the segregationists were on the court and at the Supreme Court's directions in the 1880s, since then, courts have basically taken a hands-off approach to immigration and said Congress and president can run wild with this shit and they can be as racist and as fascist as they want.

Yeah.

And so there are scenarios where the government is like allowed constitutionally to indefinitely detain people.

Like, if a lawful permanent resident goes abroad and is checking out like historical sites in Petra or something,

and on their way back, the government's like, ah, we think you were hanging out with Hezbollah.

Sorry, we're not letting you back in anymore.

But their home country says, we don't want them.

We can't take them.

They're not our citizen or whatever.

If the government doesn't have anywhere to send them, but also won't admit them, can keep them indefinitely forever without trial, without hearing, without bond without anything like that's constitutionally okay right if you're in the united states you have some more due process protections which is what breyer's sort of getting at here which is the due process clause applies to everyone yeah in the united states so there's some limits and i don't want to like start slicing and dicing this like really fine i'm not an immigration specialist all the different permutations it's not super relevant the point i want to make is that this is an area in need of reform and not just legislative reform.

Obviously, they've tried to do immigration reform in the past.

Bush tried to do it.

Obama tried to do it.

It's a big activist push right now.

But it's also on like left academics.

It's also on left legal types.

It's also on liberal judges.

We need like a federal society coming up with...

bullshit arguments like they do.

They come up with bullshit arguments about how like the takings clause means that all federal regulations are illegal.

Right, right, yeah.

And we need like academics coming up with crazy arguments like the Constitution applies to Mexicans too.

Right.

Like that's something that we need and is undeveloped here.

There was a law review article I read in college by Hiroshi Motomura saying basically this point that, you know, there isn't really a good answer to the current state of constitutional law and immigration.

And that article was written in 1990.

Yeah.

And it's like 30 years later.

We're at a good 130 years years now of the courts abdicating the responsibility here.

And it's worth saying, like, what has that rocked?

Yeah, you know, I was thinking when prepping this case, I was thinking so much about like what it means for society, what it means for our world, what it means for human beings that ICE can act like this, that DHS can act like this, that we can hold people indefinitely like this just because it's immigration law and immigration law is different.

And you just think about like, what good society excluded people like this and on this scale?

Like, that's not what makes a good society, kicking people out.

Do y'all not get yet?

Like borders are fucking fake.

Like, what are we doing?

You know what I mean?

They're not fucking real.

Like, and what makes a good society is like, people feel safe.

People have their needs met.

People have resources.

That's what makes a good society.

Yeah, but Sam Alito would ask,

define people.

I know.

It's the same intellectual obstacle.

It really is.

Every time.

And, you know, I think speaking of the damage that immigration law has wrought, we should talk about the elephant in the room here, which is ICE.

It should go without saying, you know, that searching out these people who haven't committed crimes in many years is part of ICE's strategy generally and ICE's strategy under the Trump administration more specifically.

And the goal of it is to foster an environment where non-citizens are made to live in a constant state of fear and vulnerability, where their lives and jobs and families are always precarious, always shrouded in doubt.

And the end goal, of course, is to make being an immigrant in this country so unpleasant that people stop coming here so that the conservative, white, cultureless blob that makes up the plurality of this country can go to Arby's without having to see a Spanish translation of the Bathroom Out of Order sign.

You know, we see ICE employ these sorts of tactics every day.

They've targeted immigrants who are leaving hospitals or dropping their kids off at school.

ICE agents in El Paso told a family that they had to deport either the mother or the father and made their three-year-old daughter choose.

Jesus.

They fucking made a whole movie about that.

That's a Sophie's choice, right?

Jesus Christ.

These people are fucking monstrous and their tactics are designed to create chaos and sow uncertainty.

And I'm not speculating about that strategy here.

A Trump administration official on the National Security Council said in an email in 2019, quote, my mantra has persistently been presenting aliens with multiple unsolvable dilemmas to impact their calculus for choosing to make the arduous journey to begin with.

End quote.

Right.

They're upfront about it.

Right.

Yeah.

Fucking Mitt Romney talked about this just making making them self-deport.

Right.

That's the whole idea.

It's ethnic cleansing.

Right.

That's what it is.

The ability of ICE to show up years after an immigrant has served his or her time for a crime and put them into indefinite detention is part of this broader strategy of filling their lives with chaos and uncertainty.

And a judge evaluating this law, you know, someone in the Supreme Court's position here, is not obligated to disregard that.

It's obligated to actually consider it.

Yes.

It needs consideration in determining whether this practice is fair or sensible.

And the only reason you could think that this is fair or sensible is if you believe that being a non-citizen in this country makes you less worthy of human dignity and more deserving of suffering than citizens.

There's no other conclusion you can draw.

Yeah, exactly.

That's it.

That's all there is to it.

And Peter alluded to and gave some examples of tactics that ICE use.

It's basically the fucking SS.

I mean, it is a secret police coming through communities, raiding and kidnapping people, right?

Like Peter said, they're at hospitals.

There was a report out of Michigan that an Iraqi immigrant was threatened with deportation by ICE while he was at the hospital, even though what he was doing at the hospital was being a bone marrow transplant for his niece.

Jesus.

A Salvadoran immigrant, Sara Baltran Hernandez.

She was removed from a hospital where she was undergoing treatment for a brain tumor.

In another report, two undocumented parents in Texas were only allowed to take their infant to the hospital for treatment of a really dangerous stomach issue if they agreed to turn themselves into ICE afterwards.

I have driven by or been at hospitals in South Texas where ICE and Border Patrol are just set up, right?

And you have to start thinking about like what this means for actual public safety and public health.

If people are afraid that they're gonna be picked up by fucking ICE, by the police at the hospital, then people don't go to the hospital.

You're discouraging people from going to the hospital when they need treatment, when they're sick and when they're hurt.

ICE hangs out at the courthouse.

They're waiting for people to come to do what they lawfully should be doing and are ordered to do by showing up on criminal cases, family cases, civil cases, cases that are completely not tied to immigration law, right?

ICE agents will often be hanging out in plain clothes at courthouses to pick people up.

I have been in the position of being a lawyer representing people on criminal charges who are undocumented, and being in a position of having to tell those people what to do because ICE is at the courthouse that day.

ICE, they'll raid apartment complexes, they will raid neighborhoods, they'll raid places where immigrants work, they will place families and communities under prolonged, targeted surveillance.

ICE agents are known for loitering outside homes or outside apartment complexes, watching families.

And they very commonly, very often, use kind of ruses and undercover activity to trick people they will pose as employers who are looking to hire workers

they will come knock on the door of a family they will present a photo of somebody who doesn't really exist they know that the family doesn't know this person and they'll make up a name knowing that the family will say like I don't know this person and this person doesn't live here but they'll use that to get into the house to say like okay well if this person that we're looking for doesn't live here, then we can come into your house.

And then they just arrest the whole family.

And the way that ICE picks people up, oftentimes family members, loved ones, they sometimes have no idea where their loved one is.

I had a case where I represented a client on a criminal charge.

Now I don't remember what the criminal charge was, but it was for sure a misdemeanor.

And when I was appointed to represent him and when I met him, he was at the county jail after he had just been arrested on the criminal charge.

and somehow ICE finds out that he is in jail all of the sudden my client and the father in this family is no longer at the jail and it was like a missing person nobody can say where this guy is nobody can say where he's been taken I went to uh border patrol stations looking for him we did not know where this person was until he called his wife the next day from Mexico.

It's incredibly violent.

It's incredibly pervasive the way they act.

Yeah, and look, we mention these because these are tactics designed to create chaos.

And so is ICE's interpretation of this law and the government's interpretation of this law in this case.

It is designed to create uncertainty in the minds of immigrants, right?

I was arrested and, you know, served time for a minor crime.

12 years ago.

Might I get picked up at any point in the future and indefinitely detained without bond?

Maybe.

It's something that always weighs on your mind.

And there are ways to fight back.

You can call up ICE and tell them that you know where an illegal immigrant is and you give them the location, but right in front of the location, there's a hole and you cover it with sticks and leaves.

And when they walk over it, they will fall into the hole and now they're trapped.

Yeah, lead them to the edge of a cliff, but then in front of the cliff, you put a screen that looks like the road still continues.

Right, you paint the road.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.

Perfect.

All right.

The central premise of our podcast is that the court's decisions are driven by ideology.

So don't mistake us.

Whatever you think the most reasonable interpretation of this statutory language might be, it's not a coincidence that Sam Alito doesn't give a shit about the lives and well-being of immigrants.

His disregard for their dignity is front and center here.

Exactly.

That's what legal formalism is.

It's about creating a network of rules.

And when those rules tread on the lives of human beings, you just shrug and point back at the rules as if your hands were tied.

If you take the formalistic reasoning away, Alito would still land in the same place because he is an ideologue.

But what formalism offers him is a place to hide.

It allows him to say that the language of the statute, rather than his preferences about how immigrants are treated, compelled him to rule the way that he did.

Without it, at the very least, his real motivations would be laid bare.

He is, at the very least, forced to defend the cruelty of his position for what it is.

Legal analysis as it exists right now serves primarily as a shroud over the reality that the practice of law is the manifestation of existing power structures and that disagreements over laws are actually ideological disagreements about where power should and should not sit.

Peeling that away won't fix the problem of of reactionary little cockroaches like Justice Alito, but it would shine a light on them and maybe send them scuttling back into the floorboards where they belong.

Oh, tell him

a little extended metaphor for you.

That's right.

All right, next week is Flood v.

Kuhn, a case about baseball, labor rights, and racism all wrapped up in one.

Perfect.

And maybe

a strong contender for the dumbest Supreme Court opinion of all time.

5-4 is presented by Westwood One and Prologue Projects.

This episode was produced by Kacha Kunkova with editorial oversight by Leon Napok and Andrew Parsons.

Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.

From the Westwood One Podcast Network.