Podcast appearances and mentions of Jennings V Rodriguez

On February 27, 2018 the Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez, a case involving a lawsuit by aliens challenging their continued detention under civil immigration statutes without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing as to the justification for ongoing detention.Alejandro Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen and legal permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of a drug offense and vehicular theft, and ordered removed from the country. He was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which generally requires detention of aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses until removal proceedings are resolved. In addition to challenging his removal order, however, Rodriguez also sought habeas relief in federal court in the form of a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. His case was consolidated with a related case, and after a round of litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was certified as a class to address whether aliens in situations like Rodriguez, who had been detained longer than six months pursuant to an immigration detention statute, were entitled to a hearing to assess the justification for continued detention. They argued that the immigration statutes did not justify such detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the class member’s detention remains justified. The District Court granted the class injunctive relief along these lines and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on the canon of constitutional avoidance. The Supreme Court thereafter granted the Government’s petition for certiorari.This case was originally argued before the Supreme Court in November 2016, but the Court thereafter ordered supplemental briefing and the case was then reargued in October 2017. The supplemental briefing directed the parties to address whether the alleged bond hearing requirement extended to aliens detained while seeking admission to the United States, to criminal or terrorist aliens, and how the proposed standard of proof applied to the bond hearing.By a vote of 5-3 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that the immigration provisions at issue--§§ 1225(b), 1226(a) and 1226(c) of Title 8--do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention; the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the canon of constitutional avoidance to hold otherwise. That court should consider the aliens’ constitutional claims on remand, but should first reexamine whether they may continue litigating as a class.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II. The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joined Justice Alito’s opinion in full, while Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to all but Part II, and Justice Sotomayor joined only as to Part III-C. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined except for footnote 6. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined. Justice Kagan was recused.To discuss the case, we have Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On February 27, 2018 the Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez, a case involving a lawsuit by aliens challenging their continued detention under civil immigration statutes without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing as to the justification for ongoing detention.Alejandro Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen and legal permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of a drug offense and vehicular theft, and ordered removed from the country. He was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which generally requires detention of aliens convicted of certain criminal offenses until removal proceedings are resolved. In addition to challenging his removal order, however, Rodriguez also sought habeas relief in federal court in the form of a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified. His case was consolidated with a related case, and after a round of litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was certified as a class to address whether aliens in situations like Rodriguez, who had been detained longer than six months pursuant to an immigration detention statute, were entitled to a hearing to assess the justification for continued detention. They argued that the immigration statutes did not justify such detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the class member’s detention remains justified. The District Court granted the class injunctive relief along these lines and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on the canon of constitutional avoidance. The Supreme Court thereafter granted the Government’s petition for certiorari.This case was originally argued before the Supreme Court in November 2016, but the Court thereafter ordered supplemental briefing and the case was then reargued in October 2017. The supplemental briefing directed the parties to address whether the alleged bond hearing requirement extended to aliens detained while seeking admission to the United States, to criminal or terrorist aliens, and how the proposed standard of proof applied to the bond hearing.By a vote of 5-3 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that the immigration provisions at issue--§§ 1225(b), 1226(a) and 1226(c) of Title 8--do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention; the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the canon of constitutional avoidance to hold otherwise. That court should consider the aliens’ constitutional claims on remand, but should first reexamine whether they may continue litigating as a class.Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part II. The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joined Justice Alito’s opinion in full, while Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to all but Part II, and Justice Sotomayor joined only as to Part III-C. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined except for footnote 6. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined. Justice Kagan was recused.To discuss the case, we have Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

We're live from Brett's living room today, as Brett and Nazim go old school to explain why immigrants don't have bail hearings (Jennings v. Rodriguez), why Congress can decide cases for the Courts (Patchak v. Zinke), and why podcasters shouldn't eat while recording.  Law starts at (03:10).

This week we're joined by Andrea Saenz, immigration attorney in Brooklyn, New York, to talk about the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez. We share some non-depressing stories, but then cap things off with more depressing stories. What a week.

Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube? Today's episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police.  We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why? After that, the guys break down a video called "Don't Talk To The Police" and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online. After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.'s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything.  Is that really true?  (No.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This is the recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan; and here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. You can watch the "Don't Talk To The Police" video. Here's the data on Regent University's fake law school. The first out-of-context quote comes from Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949). The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer's dissent in Rubin v. U.S., a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard reargument in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class-action lawsuit by aliens challenging their continued detention under civil immigration statutes without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing or determination that otherwise justified their continued detention. After several rounds of litigation in U.S. district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the district court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the alien class members. Under the injunction, the government must provide any class member who is subject to “prolonged detention”—six months or more—with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify the denial of bond. On subsequent appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed all aspects of the injunction except with respect to aliens detained under § 1231(a) (aliens who have been “ordered removed”). Although the Supreme Court heard argument on the case last term, it then requested supplemental briefing on the following questions and set the case for reargument this October: (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.To discuss the case, we have Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard reargument in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class-action lawsuit by aliens challenging their continued detention under civil immigration statutes without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing or determination that otherwise justified their continued detention. After several rounds of litigation in U.S. district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the district court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the alien class members. Under the injunction, the government must provide any class member who is subject to “prolonged detention”—six months or more—with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify the denial of bond. On subsequent appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed all aspects of the injunction except with respect to aliens detained under § 1231(a) (aliens who have been “ordered removed”). Although the Supreme Court heard argument on the case last term, it then requested supplemental briefing on the following questions and set the case for reargument this October: (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.To discuss the case, we have Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.

Jennings v. Rodriguez | 10/03/17 | Docket #: 15-1204 (Reargued)

Argued 10/3/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will determine whether noncitizens who are subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act are entitled to bond hearings with the possibility of release if they are detained for longer than six months. The Court will also determine whether the government’s burden is to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they are dangerous to their communities and represent flight risks."

This week's episode covers a popular topic, the government's power to make rules regarding immigration, but from an entirely different angle.  This week's episode covers the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez, which asks the Court to decide whether or not non-citizens are entitled to the same bail rights as U.S. citizens.  Brett and Nazim cover the background of bail and why inconsistent precedent make this case more about judicial activism than anything else.  Law starts immediately, with a few tangents about beer and travel later on.