crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

Archive

After regularly updating crimmigration.com from January 2009 until November 2022, I have stopped doing so. I hope you continue to benefit from the blog as an archive. For up-to-date information about my work, visit ccgarciahernandez.com. – César

Jennings v. Rodriguez highlights need for detention time limits

Justine N. Stefanelli The US Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018) (slip opinion), denying bail hearings to thousands of detainees is a serious blow to the rule of law. Detaining categories of people without regard to their individual circumstances is an arbitrary interference with the right to liberty and, at the very least, should be accompanied by procedural safeguards. The most obvious of these is a temporal limit on immigration detention. However, US immigration law provides no maximum. The closest the law has come is the setting of a presumptively [...]

Padilla should apply to all migrants

Of all the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the right to counsel is arguably the most important.  As the Supreme Court famously declared in Gideon v. Wainright, a criminal defendant simply cannot be “assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”  Subsequent holdings also established that the right to counsel does not merely afford criminal defendants the euphemistic “warm body with a law degree.”  Instead, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to “the effective assistance” of counsel as well—both during trial and in pre-trial plea [...]

Border Patrol shoots, Supreme Court punts

Seven years ago, Border Patrol agent Jesús Mesa shot and killed fifteen-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca. On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to tell us whether Hernández’s parents can successfully sue agent Mesa. The aggrieved parents sued Mesa claiming that the officer violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution when he killed Hernández. They wanted Mesa to financially pay for violating their son’s constitutional rights, a claim brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which recognizes an implied right to sue federal [...]

Should ICE or an immigration judge decide that a migrant deserves imprisonment?

The script is fairly simple: someone gets arrested and without much delay he is haled into court where a judge decides whether to grant bail. As depicted on television, this happens as a matter of routine. Everyone, it seems, accepts that it’s a judge’s role to decide whether a person who has been arrested should remain jailed pending prosecution. Not so when it comes to immigration law. Migrants are frequently locked up without seeing an immigration judge. Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about the legality of prolonged mandatory detention without a hearing. In Jennings v. [...]

Is the border truly a shoot-at-will location?

The Fourth Amendment offers a powerful bulwark against the state’s power to deprive people of their liberty. Only with the intercession of a neutral arbiter, the text indicates, can the government exercise its immense coercive powers. Anyone who has followed the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence over the last three decades knows that this promise is far from the reality. Along the border, however, even the watered-down state in which the Fourth Amendment hobbles along might be too much. Is it possible that a Border Patrol officer might have wielded his weapon too loosely, but the [...]

Fed govt misrepresentations about detention data matter

Last week we learned that the federal government provided the Supreme Court with bad data about the length of time migrants remain in detention. When? In 2002 as the Court geared up to consider what has become an enormously important decision, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2002). In Demore, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s so-called mandatory detention provision, § 236(c), is constitutionally permissible. For fourteen years, lower courts have dutifully followed the Court’s instruction. Now we know that the Court’s reasoning turned on wrong statistics. In its 2002 [...]

Utah v. Strieff and the Exclusionary Rule’s Future in Immigration Court – Part II

By Katie Tinto The availability of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for unconstitutional police conduct was recently further restricted by the Supreme Court in Utah v. Strieff, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 14-1373 (June 20, 2016). In a prior blog post, I warned of the potential of Strieff to seriously limit the availability of the suppression remedy in immigration court. Although the exclusionary rule in immigration court may not be directly impacted, the decision will likely have a detrimental effect on our immigrant communities and the manner in which they are policed. To quickly summarize the [...]

Reviewing Mathis v. United States

By Kelley Keefer and Linus Chan Justice Alito’s woeful tale of a misguided European driver in his dissenting opinion of Mathis v. United States is presented as a criticism to the Supreme Court’s categorical approach jurisprudence. No. 15-6092, slip op. dissent at 1 (J. Alito dissenting) (U.S. Sup. Ct., June 23, 2016).  And while one (and the majority) may disagree as to whether Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), really was a wrong turn, the 26 years since the publication of Taylor has nonetheless proven to be an interesting journey.  Mathis provides the latest attempt by the [...]