U.S. Appeals Court Limits Bond Hearings for Immigrants

Background: What happened?

On Monday, a U.S. appeals court stated that immigrants do not have a constitutional right to a hearing. This hearing would determine whether or not they could potentially be released from detention upon a bond. [1] This poses an intricate and complex subject matter that focuses on removing an immigrant’s access to due process.

Results: What are the circuits saying?

There are conflicting opinions from various circuits. The New York-based 2nd circuit, and Boston-based 1st circuit ruled that immigrants who have spent 15 months in detention have a right to a bond hearing. [1] The Philadelphia-based 3rd circuit and Virginia-based 4th circuit ruled the opposite. [1]

A recent trial occurred in which Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz, who was detained for gang ties in El Salvador. He claimed that he had a right to another bond trial, but the 9th U.S. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied his actions in a 2-1 ruling. [1] According to the district court, Rodriguez Diaz was granted another bond hearing. The district court further explained that it is necessary for the higher courts to “provide clear and convincing evidence that Rodriguez Diaz is a threat to his surrounding community” [2]. Despite this, it was not possible for Rodriguez Diaz to have access to a bond hearing, based on actions taken by the higher courts.

Conclusions: What are the implications?

This ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals raises many questions about immigrants’ constitutional rights in the U.S. There are clearly ambiguities within our Constitution that don’t provide clear and concrete answers to immigrants’ protection of habeas corpus. The case ruling in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland ultimately shows a violation of due process and habeas corpus.