The Jennings v. Rodriguez cases

Case: Jennings v. Rodriguez

One of the decisions that the US Supreme Court heard in October 2017 was Jennings v. Rodriguez. On November 30, 2016, the first debate took place, and on June 26, 2016, the court declared the 2016 term to be over. In response to a writ on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the case was subsequently discussed on October 3, 2017. The case’s main concern for the US Supreme Court was that it raised the contentious question of whether the government had a legal basis for holding the plaintiff in custody for an indefinite length of time. It was meant to challenge the US government decision of the of whether a judicial bond was permitted to be granted following the start of six months or whether it would be held every six months that would later follow. It was thus set to examine whether the US Code warranted bond hearings for detainees who were non-citizen aliens for a period longer than six months. The background of the case is relevant because it is stated that under the provision of Chapter 8 of the US Code, the government is permitted to detain the non-citizens who are confirmed be admissible lines without bond while awaiting their deportation and the associated proceedings. A similar case was described in May 16, 2007 where Alejandro Garcia presented a case where he filed for a writ to the US District Court for the Central District of California seeking for relief after he had been detained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It thus follows that there have been many similar cases of such a magnitude that have necessitated the need for the Supreme Court to address the issue.

Advisory

It is worth underscoring that the outcome of the ruing will be based on the constitutional provisions. It will be upheld because it is stated that the law in the US offers for the possibility of being held for a long time. It is stated that “Any individual facing the possibility of deportation can be put in immigration detention—for months or even years—while they pursue their case to remain in the U.S” (ACLU, 2017). It thus means that the law of being placed in immigration detention applies to all and does not target only a group of people as some people might think. It is also important to identify that the law would take its suit in the case because through it, one will understand that it is required that everyone should fight their cases while behind bars. To justify the idea, it is stated that ”Without bond hearings, people with strong immigration cases must fight their cases behind bars without any consideration as to whether the detention is necessary or fair” (Oyez, 2016). It follows that one can be held in detention for long periods despite the nature of ties that one’s family has in the US, it is still possible that they will be detained for a while. In fact, he many cases that justify such treatments underscore the reason for the likelihood for ruling in favor of the US. Such a consideration thus affirms the fact that the US Supreme Court will dismiss the petition and provide for the constitution of the process as it has already been.

Conclusion

While it is likely that the court will dismiss the petition, it must be noted that the solution based on my appreciation of the states in place and the constitutional provision will be relevant. I feel that the case by Jennings presents one of the many cases of bold moves that offer the opportunity to move forward in addressing issues that immigrants face in the US. It could be argued that the laws require that the constitution is followed by I feel that there are situation is where the general good has to be considered as a factor in the determination of issues that are of public importance. I, therefore, suggest that a bond healing is used as it will enable for the due process that will target to benefit many who are in individualized circumstances. It will thus mean that the move by the Supreme Court offers for a chance to reduce the enormous hazard that many immigrants often report in courts. According to Justice Elena Kagan, the government ”can’t just lock people up without any finding of dangerousness, without any finding of flight risk, for an indefinite period of time” (Jennings v. Rodriguez, 2017). Such a statement backs the idea of overcoming needless detention of people who are not violent and do not pose any security threat in the country. It will further ensure that the cost of detention is reduced and in the process the government will be saving huge sums that would otherwise go into waste. Such outcomes will mean that the trauma that is often placed on the subjects, families and communities will be addressed amicably and at the same time reduce the costs substantially.

Works cited

ACLU. (2017). Supreme Court Case Related IssuesImmigrants’ Rights. ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/cases/jennings-v-rodriguez

Jennings v. Rodriguez. (2017). Jennings v. Rodriguez. Prolonged. Retrieved from https://www.prolongeddetentionstories.org/jennings-v-rodriguez/#jennings-v-rodriguez-102

Oyez. (2016). Jennings v. Rodriguez. Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/15-1204