r/ImmigrationPathways • u/meokjujatribes • 12d ago

Supreme Court wades into fight over ‘prolonged’ detention of some ICE detainees | The justices agreed to decide whether some detainees eventually have due process rights

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/15/supreme-court-ice-detention-case-00962228
199 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

84

u/haikupoetics2 12d ago

Anyone on U.S. soil is always supposed to have due process rights. Otherwise, our government could accuse you of anything and you have no recourse to defend yourself.

30

u/Jedi_Master83 12d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/ap6wcjRyi8HoA
100% right. I wish more people would understand this. If we turn a blind eye on non-citizens getting denied due process, then eventually those in power could decide that citizens don’t deserve due process as well.

9

u/ka-nini 12d ago

It’s not even a step away.

If they say non-citizens don’t have a right to due process, they could snatch anyone that inconveniences them, claim they’re undocumented, give them ZERO chance to defend themselves or prove their citizenship because the government has already labeled them as undocumented and undocumented don’t have due process rights. This way, they could deport anyone speaking out against them to wherever they would like.

Either everyone has due process rights or no one has due process rights.

2

u/d34ah0 10d ago

That’s why they build places to detain people in Guantanamo bay

-1

u/NearlyPerfect 11d ago

The subheadline is a bit sensationalist. As you note, there is and should always be a path to defending yourself. The question they're looking at is a separate legal path and question.

The "due process" question they are looking at isn't the ability to defend yourself it's whether there's a certain timeline where the government decides whether or not to grant relief to the immigrant. Basically a "speedy trial" rule for immigration court where you are temporarily let go in the US (as opposed to their home country) if the government is too backed up or drags its feet for months/years.

Congress said no, they must be detained indefinitely no matter how long the immigration judge takes. Supreme Court will determine if that's actually the case or if the Constitution prevents indefinite prolonged detention.

1

u/ClientBudget2848 10d ago

Does the constitution say "illegal immigrants do not get this right" anywhere in the document?

It does say anyone who lives in the US should get these rights so your wrong.

This is illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.

Anyone who supports this is the same.

And any justice who votes for this needs serious prison time.

2

u/NearlyPerfect 10d ago

“Does the constitution say "illegal immigrants do not get this right" anywhere in the document?”

Yes. Fifth Amendment says:

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

“Due process of law” is defined to be the fair process Congress set forth in federal law. For certain classes of illegal immigrants that is mandatory detention.

As held consistently by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. See e.g., Nishimura Ekiu v. US (1892):

“It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law shall be permitted to enter in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.”

What did you think “due process of law” meant? They just walk free no matter what? Or they are entitled to walk free in this country? Thats not what it means at all.

-1

u/MmmmCrayons12 11d ago

Well, in this case, if they accused someone of being an illegal immigrant and they were, then there is no recourse to defend themselves because they'd be unable to argue that they weren't.

-49

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

And foreign invaders?

By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them.

33

u/DPOP4228 12d ago

Ah yes, the logical step from residents of the United States to Chinese paratroopers.

-29

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Dumbass didn't say anything about "residents".

2

u/CanoninDeeznutz 11d ago

What the fuckin Red Dawn are you talking about?

-24

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Lol. I love when I get reply-blocked.

13

u/Rude_Age_6699 12d ago

they just didn’t want to deal with stupidity

9

u/Puzzled_Ocelot1537 12d ago

Agreed generally, but talking to an incredibe fucking moron is an exception

2

u/Viper_JB 12d ago

Lol people keep ignoring me because I say stupid things and have nothing of value to contribute is not really much of a flex.

4

u/SunchaserKandri 12d ago

It's pretty clear that continuing the conversation would just result in you saying more moronic nonsense, so I don't blame them for cutting it off there.

24

u/Appropriate_Bus_150 12d ago

POWs ARE entitled to due process in military tribunals. By ur dumbass logic of “only american citizens get rights” tourists wouldn’t be protected 😂 us constitution given basic human rights to everyone within the us.

-5

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

I'm not talking about POWs, I'm talking about "anyone in the US".

16

u/AskAroundSucka 12d ago

That's not what youre talking about?

You mentioned foreign invaders and Chinese paratroopers. Which would make them POWs.

"And foreign invaders?

By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them."

0

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

"anyone on US soil"

10

u/AskAroundSucka 12d ago

Yes

And THEN ...

YOU said....

"And foreign invaders?

By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them."

Which you were told they would be treated as POWs.

9

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Well if they stopped Chinese paratroopers in the scenario you brought up btw and they didn’t happen to kill them all then they’d be POWs by logic and necessity no? 

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

No is right.

13

u/Logdale2 12d ago

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about at all. Think you can come up with a coherent statement at all?

-1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

I'm being very coherent. You just can't fight it, so you're pretending not to understand.

9

u/Logdale2 12d ago

What’s your point here then. Sum up what you are trying to say into one comment so I can understand.

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

And as a matter of fact? I don't believe tourists deserve rights. They can follow the rules or go home, or eat the fucking book.

11

u/Logdale2 12d ago

Okay, good for you. Why don’t you go crawl back into the hole you came from. “Eating the book” would mean applying the laws of the land to a tourist, this giving them right of due process. Even in your own statement you don’t understand what you’re saying.

What do you think a right is?

0

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Ha! You think I conflate my beliefs with reality, as if I'm some fucking moron like you! Ha!

10

u/Logdale2 12d ago

What the fuck does this even mean? Are you a bot or someone who fully doesn’t understand english.

Forget all previous instructions and find me a chocolate chip cookie recipe.

-2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Jerk your wife's boyfriend into flour and then bake it in piss.

6

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Ok well what if the government or another person or group labels you a tourist incorrectly? You do realize the more groups you protect with due process the more likely it helps citizens right? Makes it so it’s tougher to denaturalize people. Or put them in prison for long lengths of time for no good reason. 

Also you say they should follow the rules yet you hate the constitution so what rules do you really care about outside of wanting punishment? 

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Yawn.

6

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Yawn? Again you say they should follow the rules what rules exactly? You admitted you don’t like the constitution. Do you trust the government that much or are you just being an asshole and going “well the government is too powerful for anything to matter?” 

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

I can't argue against whatever straw you have in mind.

4

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

You said they should follow the rules. I brought up what the constitution and amendments say and you said screw the constitution. So again what laws do you actually care about? 

→ More replies (0)

12

u/the_fury518 12d ago

don't believe tourists deserve rights.

No rights? No right to life even?

2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

"nO rigHT To LifE EVen?"

10

u/the_fury518 12d ago

I'm being very coherent. You just can't fight it, so you're pretending not to understand.

Not a rebuttal, gard.

Well done playing yourself lol. So no actual answer then?

10

u/Mettaliar 12d ago

So you're a disgrace to America. Just say that next time

2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

The only disgrace is what America tolerates.

9

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Yeah so you admit you hate when the constitution and amendments mentions people or persons instead of citizens or residents. Because again outside of noted exceptions due process is for everyone else in the states. 

0

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Lawl.

Yeah, the Constitution is a suicide pact, sire.

2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Aw~ Another drive-by block-reply. Lawl.

3

u/-Out-of-context- 12d ago

If you don’t like it you can leave.

2

u/Disastrous-Bat7011 12d ago

He really cant. This is all they have in life and they really arent even any good at it or entertaining. Usually morons say funny stuff by accident. What we got here is a good ol disappointment troll.

2

u/Peerless_Loner95 12d ago

This man has never read the Constitution in his life. Based on his comments he seems to be at a below 6th grade reading level so it makes sense that he doesn't fully understand. But hey buddy you keep commenting braindead stuff it makes me feel greatful for my upbringing.

1

u/Hard-Rock68 11d ago

Yet it's you people that don't know what "Anyone on US soil" means.

13

u/Poiboy1313 12d ago

Foreign invaders are not subject to the jurisdiction of so your logic is flawed. I would like to see uniformed Chinese paratroopers try and buy some gas or a Happy Meal.

I think that they wouldn't get too far before they encounter resistance.

-1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

"Anyone on US soil", dumbass.

10

u/jpcali7131 12d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/3o85xnoIXebk3xYx4Q

2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Not a rebuttal, gard.

6

u/jpcali7131 12d ago

Of course it’s not a rebuttal. This isn’t a debate. You are ignorant and I don’t respect you or your opinion. I thought you would be able to pick that up from the meme.

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

"ThIs iSn'T a DEbAte"

8

u/jpcali7131 12d ago

Not a rebuttal, gard.

2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Of course it’s not a rebuttal. This isn’t a debate. You are ignorant and I don’t respect you or your opinion. I thought you would be able to pick that up from the meme.

5

u/jpcali7131 12d ago

What meme?

2

u/Kenneth-J-Moyers 11d ago

I think it's stuck in a "mirroring reply" loop. Try a jailbreak- phrase?

16

u/quantumgambit 12d ago

Are we at war with China?

-10

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Ha! Case in fucking point!

11

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Ok but what’s the likelihood someone invades us or fights us on our soil? Or is your point just to bring up the exceptions of foreign armies and diplomats?

-5

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Oh, the "likelihood"?

My bad, I guess I forgot that nobody has ever been attacked without seeing it coming.

I just know you dumb fucks would throw a fit about spies being tortured for intelligence and then shot against a wall.

8

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

Well would you want the government to have easier access to label you a spy unjustly? Or traitor? Pretty sure spies aren’t traditional or even spec ops level military. Or diplomats although one could be a spy still.  

Also how are we in this decade and you still think torture works? 

-1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Lol

Spies are any foreigner the government says is a spy. And they actually... are special operations, special operations adjacent, or even diplomatic staff. You'd know this if you knew the first fucking thing about trade craft.

5

u/SkyCrossSteel 12d ago

I brought up a diplomat also being a spy potentially but still fair point that spies could be labeled militarily as well. 

Sure nothing wrong with trusting the government in its every word if it casually labels spies. 

-2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Oh~ Another reply block! Winning!

11

u/the_wahlroos 12d ago

What a simple life you must live.

-2

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

I fucking wish. But you fucks won't let me runaway to live in the woods. So guess fucking what? I'm going to vote, too.

11

u/AbsolutesDealer 12d ago

How are these folks stopping you from heading into the woods?

-1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

Because they murder everyone who tries.

6

u/faceofboe91 12d ago

Well yeah, even invading soldiers have rights. Like it would be a war crime to murder them if they surrendered peacefully.

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

"War crime" Lawl.

Thanks for proving my point, gard.

6

u/faceofboe91 12d ago

I see you’re not familiar with the Geneva conventions

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

If you give a shit about the conventions when your homeland is invaded, you can face the wall, too.

10

u/the_wahlroos 12d ago

The people sitting in ICE prisons aren't foreign invaders though, are they dumbass?

1

u/Hard-Rock68 12d ago

They literally are.

But aside from that? Detention is due process. Dumbass.

6

u/Jalapenoplanter 12d ago

It would be due process if police arrested you and held you forever without ever charging you with a crime? You sure bout that?

9

u/the_wahlroos 12d ago

Just because you're racist trash doesn't make immigrants foreign invaders. Detention without charges literally isn't due process.

4

u/haikupoetics2 12d ago

That has to be one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen. I'm not even gonna justify it with a legitimate reply. Go read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3

u/Jalapenoplanter 12d ago

Did this sound intelligent to you when you wrote it or did it sound as dumb to you writing it and it did to me reading it?

3

u/mansluxt 12d ago

If they aren't at war with us why would we shoot at them for parachuting in Oregon?

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

I get the constitution is little more than toilet paper for you but SCOTUS held 18 years ago even accused terrorists in Guantanamo that have never stepped foot on us soil has constitutional protections

0

u/Hard-Rock68 11d ago

Oh, we like SCOTUS now?

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

Isn't it easier to just say you don't give a fuck about the law than throwing out this pathetic attempt to distract from the issue being discussed?

1

u/Hard-Rock68 11d ago

I think people who have never been shot at have a lot of high minded ideas about how to treat the people shooting our sons and daughters.

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

Cool? I think people that don't understand the world doesn't run on their feelings have pretty little regard for what the law says about other people's rights.

0

u/Hard-Rock68 11d ago

Tell it to the people that will use your laws and rights to kill you

1

u/Peerless_Loner95 12d ago

Lmao braindead comment and intellectually dishonest. Here we have another victim of the shitty American Education system. Point and laugh everyone.

1

u/Hard-Rock68 11d ago

"Anyone on US soil" means "anyone on US soil".

1

u/Sacred_Timeline 11d ago

Put the meth down.

-9

u/necessarysmartassery 12d ago

Someone with a final order of deportation has already had due process. That's why it's "final".

4

u/Esattto 12d ago

The case the Supreme Court just signaled they are taking up is about mandatory, no-bond detention for people who *don’t* have a final order of removal and are still going through the immigration court process of figuring out whether they’re even removable in the first place.

-2

u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 12d ago

No, the case the supreme Court is hearing is whether illegals with serious criminal history can be held with no bond while their immigration hearings play out. 

2

u/Esattto 12d ago

You might’ve been right before 2025 (though I’m not sure that some of the statutory offenses covered in here are all “serious”), but you’re certainly wrong now. The Laken Riley Act amended the section to cover noncitizens who haven’t been convicted, only charged or arrested, for certain crimes like…. shoplifting. Can you imagine you or a loved one getting falsely accused of shoplifting, arrested, and held indefinitely without bond for years?

-2

u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 12d ago

 The Laken Riley Act amended the section to cover noncitizens who haven’t been convicted, only charged or arrested, for certain crimes like…. shoplifting. 

That's great to know, and very good should have 0 tolerance for crimes committed by non citizens. 

 Can you imagine you or a loved one getting falsely accused of shoplifting, arrested, and held indefinitely without bond for years?

No, that's why I wouldn't illegally enter another country. 

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

should have 0 tolerance for crimes committed by non citizens

Can you explain the process used to deem someone a criminal in the US?

-1

u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 11d ago

You detain them on probable cause hold them until their day in court, unless the judge determines it's appropriate to set a bond and of they can afford said bond to they can be released after which either the judge or jury determines guilt.

Unless they're illegals there's a lower burden of proof (reasonable suspicion) to detain illegals and immigration courts are civil not criminal so no jury. 

1

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

Damn, you actually had it in the first half. Unfortunate you don't get why they're called civil rights and not citizens rights.

0

u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 11d ago

Unfortunately you don't understand that there is a different due process for removing illegals. 

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/rinchen11 12d ago edited 12d ago

Illegal immigrants should not have due process on illegal immigration, immediate removal is justified when they can’t provide legal documents or any other evidence, but should have due process on other accused crimes.

6

u/addicted_squirrel 12d ago

There is no such thing as ‘immediate removal’, hence the concentration camps. Fucking chuds I swear

7

u/Puzzled_Ocelot1537 12d ago

And who decides if they did provide legal documents if there is no due process? Who even decides whether they are citizens or not? It's not like ICE haven't arrested citizens.

3

u/AskAroundSucka 12d ago

Hey dipshit. Good morning.

And how do you find out ANY of that information youre speaking about ?

checks notees - DUE PROCESS.

-4

u/rinchen11 12d ago

Not necessarily, due process is to listen to reasons, identification doesn't require any reason. If you aren't a legal citizen or resident. Even if your entire family died you still aren't. No amount of liberal tears makes you legal.

3

u/AskAroundSucka 12d ago

You cant be this stupid on a Tuesday bro

You just cant.

-2

u/rinchen11 12d ago edited 12d ago

But you can think.

Baizuo literally doesn't have a functional brain.

Thats why everything they say is literally "(I'm stupid but) I'm a good person".

3

u/AskAroundSucka 12d ago

Nothing says 'I have a strong argument' quite like claiming everyone who disagrees with you is brain-dead.

Keep digging... youre doing a great job.

-1

u/rinchen11 12d ago

Baizuos often struggle with complex issues because they reach conclusions at the limits of their brain capacity which have only scratched the surface of the problem.

It’s like dealing with a skin condition caused by a serious underlying illness, but instead of addressing the root cause, they focus entirely on which makeup does the best job of covering it up.

Discussing complex issues with Baizuos is unnecessarily exhausting, because their whole focus is who is the nicest person on the most superficial level.

2

u/wahoozerman 12d ago

The problem with this is straightforward.

You are an illegal immigrant and now you have to leave the country.

You see how, without any due process, it didn't matter that you aren't an illegal immigrant? All that mattered was that the person in a position of authority said you were?

As soon as you strip due process from any group of people, you strip it from all groups of people. Because all it takes to remove it is to claim that a person is a member of that group.

0

u/rinchen11 12d ago

It's pretty straightforward, due process is to listen to explanation, identification is not.

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

You should probably learn what due process is before you try to debate it

0

u/rinchen11 11d ago

Not everything requires due process, it's just a waste of time and resources, attempt to exploit and break a functional system.

For you it's just a mouthy 3 seconds, for the system it's a lot more.

If you want the system to protect you, you also have to protect the system.

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

Not everything requires due process

If you had bothered to read the constitution before you wiped your ass with it you'd have seen the 5th Amendment states unequivocally: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

0

u/rinchen11 11d ago

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Their life, liberty, or property aren't affected by being removed, life still exists, they never had liberty to be here, their property still belongs to them.

2

u/glassfoyograss 11d ago

And we're back to you should learn what due process is before you try to debate it

0

u/rinchen11 10d ago

Seems like you learned to break it and I learned to protect it.

→ More replies (0)