SCOTUS Arguments at 10am est

Secure the Western Hemisphere from Narco-Terrorism to say no to a welfare state.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?506848-1/pham-v-chavez-oral-argument

https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/chapter-12-immigration-and-nationality/subchapter-ii-immigration/part-iv-inspection-apprehension-examination-exclusion-and-removal/section-1231-detention-and-removal-of-aliens-ordered-removed

https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/chapter-12-immigration-and-nationality/subchapter-ii-immigration/part-iv-inspection-apprehension-examination-exclusion-and-removal/section-1226-apprehension-and-detention-of-aliens

>>12463723

https://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs?text=897&sc_term=All&type=All&subject=All

A. Respondents’ Statutory Arguments Are Incorrect

Respondents fail to show that 8 U.S.C. 1226 rather than 8 U.S.C. 1231(a) governs the detention of an alien whose order of removal has been reinstated and who is pursuing statutory withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 20, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Their responses to the government’s arguments lack merit; their reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., is unsound; and their un- derstanding of when a removal order becomes final is mistaken

>>12463794

Respondents lack meritorious answers to the govern- ment’s statutory arguments

Respondents lack a good answer to the government’s main textual argument (Gov’t Br. 13-17): Section 1226 authorizes detention while a “decision” on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States remains pending, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), whereas Section 1231(a) au- thorizes detention after the alien has been “ordered re- moved,” 8 U.S.C. 1231(a). The entry of a final order of removal means that the relevant “decision” is no longer pending, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), and that the alien has been “ordered removed,” 8 U.S.C. 1231(a). Entry of a final order of removal therefore marks the boundary be- tween detention under Section 1226 and detention un- der Section 1231(a).

Respondents dismiss (Br. 20-22) the significance of those statutory terms, accusing the government of “fix- ating” on isolated words, “pluck[ing]” terms “from the broader text,” and “focusing myopically on a few indi- vidual phrases.” Congress, however, used terms such as “decision” and “ordered removed” prominently and persistently in the statute. In particular, Section 1226 refers twice to a “decision” on whether the alien is to be removed. 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). And Section 1231 bears the caption “Detention and removal of aliens ordered re- moved”; subsection (a) bears the caption “Detention, re- lease, and removal of aliens ordered removed”; para- graphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) authorize detention during the removal period for an alien who has been “ordered re- moved”; and paragraph (a)(6) authorizes detention be- yond the removal period for “[a]n alien ordered re- moved.” 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)-(2) and (6) (emphases omit- ted). Whether the Court looks at the forest or the trees,

the view remains the same: the scope of Section 1231 turns on whether the alien has been ordered removed.

>>12463808

Respondents also lack a good answer to the govern- ment’s structural argument (Br. 17-18) that Congress placed both the provision governing reinstatement of removal orders and the provision governing statutory withholding of removal in Section 1231, not in Section 1226. See 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) and (b)(3). Respondents argue (Br. 35-36) that Congress’s structural choice shows that Congress meant Section 1231(a) to cover the general category of aliens with reinstated removal or- ders, but not the specific category of aliens with rein- stated removal orders who ask for withholding of re- moval. But that answer fails to account for Congress’s choice to place both the reinstatement provision and the withholding provision in Section 1231. That choice shows that Congress meant to address not only reinstatement in general, but also the combination of reinstatement and withholding in particular, under that section.

>>12463815

Finally, respondents fail to refute the government’s argument (Br. 19-20) that applying Section 1231(a) would promote, while applying Section 1226 would thwart, the purposes of the reinstatement statute. Re- spondents accept (Br. 44) that Congress adopted the re- instatement statute in part to streamline the process for removing illegal reentrants, but argue that the choice between Section 1231(a) and Section 1226 “does not bear on that” objective. That is mistaken. An alien who is detained under Section 1226 may have an opportunity for release—specifically, a bond hearing before an im- migration judge, followed by an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals—that is unavailable to one de- tained under Section 1231(a). Indeed, that is the very reason respondents here prefer the former provision.

4

See Gov’t Br. 6-7. Affording that possibility to aliens such as respondents would undermine Congress’s ob- jective of streamlining the process of removing illegal reentrants from the United States.

>>12463723

>>12463830

>>12463950

>>12463978

>>12464083

>>12464124

>>12464147

Phases in an uncomfortable dilemma

>>12464155

Precision deportations/enforcement of the law

Not creating little narco children that’ll create feral cities

>>12464177

Month

>>12464193

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2021-00038/national-slavery-and-human-trafficking-prevention-month-2021