The Laken Riley Act, which expands Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), has sparked concerns about its impact on due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. This expansion broadens the mandatory detention of immigrants awaiting deportation, including those without serious criminal convictions, and denies them the opportunity for a fair hearing before a judge. Here’s why this is problematic from a constitutional perspective.
Understanding the 5th and 14th Amendments
The 5th Amendment guarantees due process for individuals under federal jurisdiction, while the 14th Amendment extends this protection to those under state jurisdiction. These amendments ensure that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. This includes the right to challenge detention and have a fair hearing.
The Problem with the Laken Riley Act
The Laken Riley Act’s expansion of INA 236(c) removes the opportunity for many detained immigrants to challenge their detention before a judge. This is a significant violation of due process:
Lack of Judicial Oversight
By mandating mandatory detention without a hearing, the law strips individuals of their right to contest their detention in court and forecloses a judicial officer’s standard role in determining whether an individual seeking a custody determination poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community. This lack of judicial oversight violates the due process rights protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Prolonged Detention Without Conviction
Many immigrants detained under this law have not been convicted of serious crimes or any crimes at all, yet they face indefinite detention without the chance to apply for release. In fact, on its face, the Laken Riley Act provides for the mandatory detention of certain non-citizens based only upon non-violent shoplifting arrests incurred years or even decades earlier, and which have resulted since in dismissal or full acquittal of all arrest charges. There is no provision under INA 236(c) that provides for mandatory detention based simply on an arrest. This raises serious concerns about the impact of the law on immigrant rights and its failure to provide due process protections.
Disproportionate Impact
The expansion disproportionately affects immigrants from marginalized communities, raising concerns about unequal treatment and racial discrimination in the immigration system. The Laken Riley Act exacerbates systemic inequities and unfairly targets vulnerable populations, which could violate equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
The Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) set a legal precedent against indefinite detention without legal recourse. This ruling emphasized that detention without proper judicial oversight could violate constitutional rights, reinforcing the argument against the mandatory detention provisions of the Laken Riley Act.
DACA
Those in the United States who currently hold Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and who are simply arrested (including being stopped and issued a summons) for a shoplifting offense or any other offense listed under the Laken Riley Act are now subject to ICE detention and placement in removal proceedings without any opportunity to seek a custody hearing. That this large, and generally highly-educated and gainfully employed, non-criminal group of DREAMers would be subject to detained deportation proceedings based simply on an allegation (not a conviction) of a non-violent misdemeanor offense is, in and of itself, odious, offensive, and antithetical to the notions of justice and mercy that undergird the 5th and 14th Amendments. It is impossible to not foresee the inevitable and painful collision DACA and the Laken Riley Act will have in the months and years to come.
The Call for Reform
Advocacy groups and legal experts argue that the Laken Riley Act undermines justice and fairness. They are pushing for reforms that would provide better protections for immigrants, ensure greater judicial oversight, and preserve the right to a fair hearing. Without these reforms, the Laken Riley Act will continue to undermine the fundamental due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.