{"id":431,"date":"2018-02-28T21:34:47","date_gmt":"2018-02-28T21:34:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ielrblog.com\/?p=431"},"modified":"2018-02-28T21:39:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T21:39:07","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in <em>Jennings v. Rodriguez. <\/em>In a 5-3 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/17pdf\/15-1204_f29g.pdf\">ruling<\/a>, with Justice Elena Kegan recused and Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 8 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Rodriguez, is a lawful permanent resident residing in the U.S. since he was an infant. DHS initiated removal proceedings based on prior convictions of possession of a controlled substance and \u201cjoy riding.\u201d DHS detained Rodriguez for over three years while the removal proceedings were ongoing, and Rodriguez filed a habeas petition along with a class of immigrants arguing that the relevant statutes do not authorize \u201cprolonged\u201d detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing.<\/p>\n<p>The district court issued a permanent injunction requiring individualized hearings before an immigration judge. The Ninth Court affirmed the ruling, and also interpreted the statute to mean that the Government must provide periodic bond hearings to the detained at six-month intervals. Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>The Canon of Constitutional Avoidance <\/em><\/p>\n<p>In their <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/15-1204-Opp-to-Govt-Petition-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf\">opposition brief<\/a> to the Government\u2019s petition for certiorari, the respondents noted that in <em>Zadvydas v. Davis<\/em>, the Court had applied the canon of constitutional avoidance (also called the canon of constitutional doubt) to read the six-months implied term into the immigration statute in question. The constitutional avoidance rule allows courts to \u201cchoose among constructions which are \u2018fairly possible,\u2019\u00a0<em>Crowell\u00a0<\/em>v.\u00a0<em>Benson, 285\u00a0<\/em>U. S. 22, 62 (1932), not to &#8220;\u2019press statutory construction to the point of disingenuous evasion even to avoid a constitutional question.\u2019\u201d (<em>Zadvydas <\/em>707) In other words, when faced with the choice of deciding a case on a constitutional basis vs. a nonconstitutional (statutory or regulatory) basis, the canon advises that the Court should avoid ruling on the constitutional question. Citing the canon of constitutional avoidance, the respondents argued that the implicit six-month rule follows from the <em>statutory <\/em>holding in <em>Zadvydas<\/em>: \u201cBecause Section 1226(c) does not specify its temporal scope, this Court should not read it to implicitly authorize prolonged detention, particularly when Congress has explicitly authorized such detention in other statutes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In addition to citing the <em>Zadvydas <\/em>case, the respondents mention in their brief that all of the six federal circuits to consider the issue have rejected the interpretation that Section 1226(c) authorizes \u201cunlimited detention without review.\u201d The respondents argue that the \u201cabsence of any temporal limit\u201d in the aforementioned section, along with the Patriot Act\u2019s \u201cspecific authorization for detention beyond six months with limited review,\u201d show that Congress did not intent for Section 1226(c) to authorize prolonged mandatory detention. Furthermore, the existing case law, at both the Supreme Court and federal appeals court level, reveals that the six-month rule \u201ccomports with [the Supreme] Court\u2019s use of similar rules of administrability in other contexts.\u201d (Respondents\u2019 Brief, 34)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Alito Rejects the Application of the Canon in This Case <\/em><\/p>\n<p>In the majority opinion, Alito rejects the \u201csix-month reasonableness limitation\u201d on the detention of LPRs that the respondents argue is implied in Section 1225(b). \u00a0He acknowledges that the <em>Zadvydas<\/em> Court arrived at the six months rule by applying the constitutional-avoidance canon, albeit by a \u201cnotably generous\u201d application. However, he argues that the Ninth Circuit took the canon \u201cmuch further\u201d than the <em>Zadvydas<\/em> Court intended. To support this claim, Alito offers that the relevant statute in <em>Zadvydas<\/em> &#8211; \u00a71231(a)(6) \u2013 \u201cdiffers materially from those at issue here.\u201d By examining a set of \u201ctextual signals,\u201d Alito concludes that \u00a71231(a)(6) was ambiguous as to a temporal time limit, while \u00a0\u00a71225(b)1 and (b)2 \u201cmandate decision until a certain point and authorize\u201d prior release only under \u201climited circumstances.\u201d Thus, there is no blanket six-month rule implied in either of the latter two statutes.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Breyer\u2019s Dissent: The Majority\u2019s Interpretation Renders the Statute Unconstitutional <\/em><\/p>\n<p>In his Dissent, Breyer frames the central question as follows: Does the statute require specific groups of noncitizens held in confinement to \u201creceive a bail hearing, after, say, six months of confinement, with the possibility of release on bail into the community <em>provided <\/em>that they do not pose a risk of flight or a threat to the community\u2019s safety?\u201d Breyer argues that the majority\u2019s interpretation of the statutes in question would raise \u201cgrave doubts\u201d on the statute\u2019s constitutionality.\u00a0 In particular, the statute would violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Breyer notes that case law has established that the Due Process Clause sees \u201celigibility for bail as part of due process.\u201d (See <em>Salerno<\/em>)<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Eight Amendment forbids \u201c[e]xcessive bail.\u201d In Salerno, Breyer argues, the Court held that both the Due Process Clause and the Exercise Bail Clause apply in \u201ccases challenging bail procedures,\u201d such as <em>Jennings v. Rodriguez<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined Breyer\u2019s dissent. In a rare move, Breyer read from his defense.<\/p>\n<p>Immigrants\u2019 rights advocates worry that the ruling in <em>Jennings v. Rodriguez <\/em>will have outsize implications on detained immigrants\u2019 rights against the backdrop of the Trump administration\u2019s aggressive rhetoric on and enforcement of immigration policy within U.S. borders. According to NBC News, ICE deportation arrests <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/news\/latino\/ice-deportation-arrests-soar-under-trump-administration-drop-border-arrests-n826596\">have soared<\/a> \u00a0by 40 percent since the current administration took office, while border arrests have fallen to a 45-year low. The discrepancy between deportation and border arrests reflects the Trump administration\u2019s focus on internal security, rather than border control.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez. In a 5-3 ruling, with Justice Elena Kegan recused and Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 8 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) give detained aliens the right to periodic bond [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":414,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-431","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-immigration-enforcement","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez. In a 5-3 ruling, with Justice Elena Kegan recused and Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 8 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) give detained aliens the right to periodic bond [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IELR Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/intlenforcementlawreporter\/?ref=bookmarks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Zarine Kharazian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ielr\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ielr\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Zarine Kharazian\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Zarine Kharazian\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\"},\"headline\":\"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":917,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"articleSection\":[\"Immigration Enforcement\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/\",\"name\":\"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"width\":200,\"height\":200},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/28\\\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"IELR Blog\",\"description\":\"Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\",\"name\":\"Zarine Kharazian\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Zarine Kharazian\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/author\\\/zarine-kharazian\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog","og_description":"On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez. In a 5-3 ruling, with Justice Elena Kegan recused and Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 8 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) give detained aliens the right to periodic bond [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/","og_site_name":"IELR Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/intlenforcementlawreporter\/?ref=bookmarks","article_published_time":"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":200,"height":200,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Zarine Kharazian","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ielr","twitter_site":"@ielr","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Zarine Kharazian","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/"},"author":{"name":"Zarine Kharazian","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544"},"headline":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings","datePublished":"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/"},"wordCount":917,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","articleSection":["Immigration Enforcement"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/","url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/","name":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings | IELR Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","datePublished":"2018-02-28T21:34:47+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T21:39:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","width":200,"height":200},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/02\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-rules-detained-aliens-not-constitutional-right-periodic-bond-hearings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Detained Aliens Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Periodic Bond Hearings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/","name":"IELR Blog","description":"Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544","name":"Zarine Kharazian","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","caption":"Zarine Kharazian"},"url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/author\/zarine-kharazian\/"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pas6ng-6X","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":434,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions\/434"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}