Arizona Law Denying Bail for Some Immigrants Wins Appeal

Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2013

An Arizona law that denies immigrants who are in the country without legal permission the right to post bail for a wide array of felonies won approval Tuesday from a divided federal appeals court.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided 2 to 1 to uphold Arizona’s Proposition 100, a 2006 ballot measure that voters approved 78% to 22% as a state constitutional amendment to create bail exceptions for immigrants who lack authorization.

Two immigrants who were denied bail under the law challenged it in a class-action lawsuit. One was arrested for a drug offense, the other for assault, kidnapping and aiding a criminal syndicate.

They argued that the state law violated the U.S. Constitution’s right to due process and other protections and usurped the federal government’s right to decide immigration law.

{snip}

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the immigrants, contended that people with strong ties to the community, including children, have been denied bail even though they were not likely to flee and were facing charges that could result in no jail time.

In upholding a lower-court ruling in favor of the state, the 9th Circuit majority said that Proposition 100 was aimed at preventing arrested suspects from fleeing before trial, and that it was in line with other no-bail provisions states enact.

“Proposition 100’s legitimate — indeed its compelling — purpose is ensuring that defendants remain in the United States to stand trial for alleged felony violations of Arizona’s criminal laws,” Judge Richard C. Tallman, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote for the majority.

{snip}

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • WR_the_realist

    I’m astonished. The 9th Circuit Court is notoriously left wing. Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    • me

      Now if they’d just do something to repeal the ‘anchor baby’ loophole….

  • The__Bobster

    Two immigrants who were denied bail under the law challenged it in a class-action lawsuit. One was arrested for a drug offense, the other for assault, kidnapping and aiding a criminal syndicate.
    _________

    Now who is paying for this lawsuit? Surely not the ugly brown squat monster invaders. Let’s investigate further….
    _________________

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the immigrants….
    _________

    Oh yes, the ACLU, financially supported by scared old jews and destroying traditional America, one court case at a time.

    • RisingReich

      I’m sure if I write the same truth under my name the post automatically becomes ‘anti-tribe’ and it gets deleted.

      Doesn’t change the truth however.

  • bigone4u

    Mexico often provides safe haven for Mesican criminals who make it back across the border. I see in the story that the ACLU was behind the legal challenge to a commonsense law intended to render justice to victims. No surprise there.

  • The__Bobster

    The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided 2 to 1 to uphold Arizona’s Proposition 100, a 2006 ballot measure that voters approved 78% to 22% as a state constitutional amendment to create bail exceptions for immigrants who lack authorization.
    _____________

    It seems that a conservative ballot initiative with 100% public support can be wiped out by one rogue judge. It makes you wonder if it’s worth voting.

    • Whenever there is a GOP state governor here in Colorado, I always vote “no” across the board on state judge retention. In case of recall the governor would then appoint a less liberal replacement. Sadly, there is no such recourse against appointed federal judges.

      • evilsandmich

        I guess that’s only slightly screwy. All Ohio judges go before the ballot just like any other pol. The only difference is that no party affiliations are printed on the ballot. This helps keep unpopular liberal wankery in check, but it can also lead to the election of some bizarre affirmative action judges.