Prof. Linus Chan Interviewed by Sahan Journal About Court Ruling Allowing Detainments Without Bond

Professor Linus Chan, James H. Binger Clinical Professor of Law, was interviewed by the Sahan Journal about an appeal’s court ruling that said the Trump administration can continue to detain immigrants without bond. It marked a major legal victory for the federal immigration agenda and countering a slew of recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Friday evening that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country is consistent with the constitution and federal immigration law. At the heart of the legal battle ensuing in courts across the country is a 1996 statute pertaining to the mandatory detention of immigrants arriving at the U.S. Border. Under Statute 8 U.S.C. 1225 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, if “an alien seeking admission [to the United States] is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding.” It’s this clause, “seeking admission,” that has emerged as the key point of contention. The federal government argues that the term applies to every immigrant who did not legally enter the United States, regardless of how long they have been in the country. But Prof. Chan said the statute was drafted to govern decisions made only at the country’s border, not the interior. He said, “That is a statute that basically decides what to do about people who are coming at the border. It’s referencing much more on the physical entry side. They have border patrol policies about using detention, and that detention, just to be clear, was always designed to be very short term.”