White House says judicial ruling on border at WAR with rule of law

On Wednesday a federal judge decided that the White House can no longer detain immigrants applying for asylum without a bond hearing:

ABC NEWS – The nationwide injunction issued by Seattle District Judge Marsha Pechman put a hold Attorney General William Barr’s order from April that U.S. authorities would deny bond hearings to some migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally, even if they had established a “credible fear” claim regarding conditions in their country of origin.

Prior to Barr’s order, an applicant who met that standard could remain in the U.S. and not be detained while the asylum application was pending.

“It is the finding of this Court that it is unconstitutional to deny these class members a bond hearing while they await a final determination of their asylum request,” Pechman wrote in her order. “The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue.”

The ruling said that the government must grant eligible asylum-seekers a bond hearing within seven days of their initial detention, and that if no hearing is held in that period, the detained migrant must be released.

So basically all the immigrants would have to be set free in the US because I doubt there’s any way possible they could accommodate bond hearings from every migrant seeking asylum.

The White House responded saying this ruling is a war on the rule of law:

The judge who made this ruling is a Clinton appointee, which is ironic, because the law she’s declaring unconstitutional was signed into law by President Clinton.

Daniel Horowitz explains just how radical her ruling really is on this issue:

There are no words in the English language to describe the radical nature of this ruling. Section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, says that those seeking asylum “shall be detained for further consideration of the application of asylum.” Now, in a growing trend among judges in the district courts within the Ninth Circuit, a judge is saying that the law itself violates the Fifth Amendment. Pechman claimed that this administration’s implementation of the 1996 law violates “50 years of statutory and case law supporting the right of persons detained for non-criminal reasons to be released upon posting bond.”

In fact, her application of bond hearings to aliens within the context of immigration proceedings is a violation of settled case law. As the court established in U.S. v. Ju Toy (1905), “The petitioner, although physically within our boundaries, is to be regarded as if he had been stopped at the limit of our jurisdiction, and kept there while his right to enter was under debate.” There is no Fifth Amendment right because one cannot unilaterally assert jurisdiction before being admitted to the country. Jurisdiction for constitutional rights is a legal distinction, not a physical one.

So essentially this judge is trying to force bond hearings when none are required and if that can’t be accommodated, then catch and release.

I’m certain the Trump administration will appeal this ruling, if they haven’t already, because this judicial activism cannot stand.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.