Authority to establish the rules under which aliens will be allowed to enter and remann in the United States. This case squarely implicates that principle. During proceedings the question whether a certified class will be detained or allowed into the United States are simply two sides of the same coin. In practical effect respondents assert a constitutional right to be released into this country for the remainder of the removal proceedings if those proceedings last more than six months and the government cannot prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. This makes clear respondents have no such right. Id like to begin with the alien subclass, the statutory provision most directly at issue for these purposes is 152a of the petition appendix. This one deals particularly with what i think is the most important subset of the arriving alien subclass, individuals who come to the country for the first time, they pass a credible screening for asylum purposes and then placed in removal proceedings. Near the top of page 152a, it says if the asylum officer determines at the time of the interview the alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum. In the very provision congress was dealing with aliens who passed the credible screening, the title of credible fear provides mow entitlement to be released in the United States. The alien wont be put in expedite removal and will have a chance to prove his compliance with prerequisites for asylum. There is a possibility of parole, is there it . There is a possibility of parole entrusted to the discretion of dhs. Thats made under some of the same criteria the respondents would have the immigration judge make in bond hearings. That is, its the policy of dhs, if an alien passes a credible fear screening and dhs is able adequately to verify his identity and is satisfied the alien is not a flight risk and will not be dangerous if released into the community, unless theres some kind of veiling consideration the policy of dhs is to pull those individuals into the country. Can you give me any idea of numbers . Does 10 meet that requirement . 20 or do we know . We really dont know. Dhs doesnt keep statistics as to the numbers. Its not either a for maltin the sense of aliens being always or almost always paroled but between those two extremes i dont think we have reliable statistical evidence. I thought we had some. From what i understand, in 2012, isis granted parole to 80 of arriving aliens. In 2015 the number dropped to 47 , and it may be lower now. So my question is, its obviously the executive alone making this determination. What other area of law have we permitted a government agent, on his or her own, without a neutral party, looking at that decision to detain someone indefinitely . Well, first of all, i would not accept the premise this was indefinite detention. It is true there is no outer limit in terms of a number of days but it is detention specifically pending a determination of eligibility for asylum. That assumes that determination is going to be done in some expeditious way. We know as a matter of fact, that these determinations can sometimes take years. They can sometimes take a long time. The cases in which aliens are detained are expedite by the Immigration Judges and the bia. They do move more quickly than cases involving nondetained aliens. I guess the first thing i would say in answer to your question, is there any other area of law . The court has said time after time insofar as aliens arriving at our shores are concerned, whatever process congress chooses to give is due process. Aliens, once they built up ties to the country. The problem with that is were a country of arbitrariness in detaining people, locking them up. Perhaps, lets answer this question. In which ways is immigration detention different than criminal detention . I understand right now that when you detain aliens, you put them in orange suits. They are shackled during visitation and court visits. They are subject to surveillance and strip searches. They are referred to by number, not by name. So in which way is immigration detention different than criminal detention . I think the real difference is the justification for the detention, that is the justification for criminal detention at least with respect to convicted prisoners, obviously theyve been found guilty of a crime. For that, you need judicial process. There are some circumstances outside this country where aliens who want to apply for a visa or want to assert an entitlement to refuge status can do so outside this country. Those avenues are available during the period while u. S. Government officials are deciding whether to grant the request, the alien doesnt need to be detained. When the alien arrives at the shores of the United States, the only two options are detention and release into the community. So the principle that the alien has no constitutional right to be released into the community necessarily compels detention. The other respect in which mr. Stewarty there is something in between. It doesnt have to be released or fancy free, they can monitor, they can use monitoring devices to check on the person whos been released. There are various forms of monitoring and supervision the government can use. I think its still basically release even though its release with conditions or some form of monitors. The court in damor versus kim says the due process require restriction of aliens. Justice breyer . The statute doesnt say about whether therell be bail hearings or not, it just says arrest and detain. We detain people when ever we stop them for miranda, briefly, you know, stop and search, frisk and search, et cetera. We detain them when we arrest them. Normally, if you were to say detain somebody most cases, you give them a bail hearing. All right. Why is the statute different here . In xk, i think, the agency said well give some of the people, those found within 100 miles of the border, well give some bail hearings. Of course, if theyre found within 100 miles of the border aall get bail hearings but at l. A. X. Or lg or jfk, who have a credible claim of prosecution, they dont get bail hearings. That, to me, is a little odd, particularly when Justice Sotomayor says, we give ax murderers, bail hearings. Are they dangerous . The people in the first category might have relatives in los angeles, they might have a green card somebody decides is no longer valid. Whats the basis for reading the word detained . Sometimes to allow bail hearings at the discretion of the agency. Other times, not to allow bill hearings. And keeping the people possibly for a year . A year and a half in a jail cell . Sorry, i dont mean my voice to rise, but without even a bail hearing, where where i meany the word detain doesnt say that. It just doesnt say. Sections 1225 and 1226 have traditionally been understood to get at different categories of aliens. 1226 is the provision we use when we arrest somebody who has entered the United States. 1225 is the one we use when dealing with aliens who arrive at our shores. There is a tweak to that principle, you alloweded to aliens within 100 miles of the border or within the country more than furnish days. In most cases those are people who just arrived. The bia issued the decision in the matter of xkay, for purposes of the bond hearings we read the regulations to say we read the purpose for bond hearings as if just as much people as you mentioned in the beginning, just as much people who have no right to be in the country. Just as much who havent been here for a few hours. Just as much, yet the agency says theres no problem giving them bail hearings. We have never suggested those coming to the border at the checkpoint are entitled to what aliens are given under matter of xk. I dont think theres any justification the bia made that decision because they thought the regulation prefded others coming to the board for bail hearings. It read the statute as not imposing such an obstacle. The statute says, with respect to arriving aliens, they shall be detained for further consideration. What im saying, the bia read the statute in exactly the way Justice Breyer indicated. Are you saying it is wrong in xk. It says the statute doesnt say, is perfectly consistent with bond hearings given and the regulation only is at the border. Even if you adopt that reading of the statute and accept xk to that extent, the authority under 1226, which is at page 126a of the petition appendix, this deals with people detained within the country. It says except as provided in subsection c of this section dealing with victim aliens and the decision whether the alien should be removed from the United States, the attorney general may continue to detain the arrested alien or release the arrested alien. Its the regulations that provide for bond hearings for people arrested inside the country. Even if you read that statute to authorize the executive branch to grant bond hearings for individuals who are newly arriving at the border. Nothing in the statute says thats compelled and to the constitution says thats compelled. If you can turn to you a second, Justice Sotomayor, are there any other comparables of the law or why would immigration be unique. You can look at the political branches have plenary power as simply an exof the law, its also the case the government has to provide greater process when it tries to take something away an individual already has or when it decides to give a benefit to an individual in the fist place. Some process, i hear what youre saying with respect to 1225a is no process. Because you have an executive parole ins member deciding whether someone should be paroled or not and no neutral magistrate of any kind is looking at that executive distinction to ensure its not arbitrary. Theres something for the mental about that in due process someone should be looking at whether this is neutral or not. Somebody is. Some neutral party. It could certainly be a case as far as the constitution is concerned, in many situations, a person who applies for government benefits for instance, could get the process congress specified. If congress specified an employee of the social Administration Business would make benefits congress has provided for judicial review but if congress didnt, i think the answer as a constitutional matter would be you have no due process clause. Mr. Stewart, is your argument about the new people coming to the border premised on the idea they have no Constitutional Rights at all . It is premised on that. If it is premised on that, Justice Scalia talked about in one of his hearings, surely that couldnt be right. Could we torture those people . Could we put them enforced labor. Surely the answer to that is no, is that right. I should be precise they have no Constitutional Rights with respect to the determination whether they be allowed. They do have some constitution sal rights, not to be tortured or placed in hard labor. Its pretty close to that not to be placed in arbitrary confinement. Arbitrary detention. If by arbitrary you meant arbitrary means nobody gave them and civilized hearing so we dont know whether theyre being held for any good reason. Nobodys made that decision. Usually in our constitutional law we think that thats a problem. I think congress, consistent with the constitution, could have abolished parole all together and said as a categorical matter no newly arriving alien will be able to arrive in the country until she has persuaded the decisionmaker the right thing ultimately would be to let that person in. Congress has historically offered parole as a form of process. People oversay their visitors visas, we find a business person who has overstayed his visitors visa. Youre here too long. Well put him in a cell for 18 months. Can they do that . They can put him in a cell. The answer has to be no, doesnt it . He has an entitlement in that circumstance to a bond hearing. Wait. What im thinking of is this. You got me thinking at the beginning of somebody standing at the airport outside the gate or standing outside the gate say in mexico, canada possibly. That isnt what happens. What happens is theyre told to that person, you want to go home, go. But i have a legal right, i think, to be in the United States. Very well, come in. Now, hes physically in the United States. What we do personally, because he has shown he has a fear of persecution, we put him in a little reception area that looks like a cell and keep him there for 13 months or a year without a bail hearing and maybe without anything. Thats the problem. It seems to me if im right, you will correct me if i am wrong, if i am right, its not quite, it has a lot of implications base there are a lot of people in that category. To say they have no rights at all, im pretty nervous about that. I tried to be more precise with justice kagan. Theres no constitutional right to be admitted into the country. When the alien arrives at the border the only alternative to release in the community except perhaps supervision is detention. With respect to these class members, detained more than six months. Fewer than 5 prevailed on the ground but not removable. Mistakes were made with an actual entitlement. I thought 40 win. They win and obtain asylum. But dont establish a right to be there. Do you agree detention violates due process if theres an unreasonable delay . If the unreasonable delay is acontributedable in its prosecutorial lets suppose congress provided only onetenth of Immigration Judges to avoid delay. Is that acontributttributed . If they did not arrive for a year and a half, they cant count that . They have no Due Process Rights to enter the country. We started from the previously miss you say due process is violated when theres an unreasonable delay attributable to the government. My question is, how can we measure that . Isnt a bright mind rule, six months, nine months, whatever it is, ease enough to say, are there enough immigrations . I wish there werent. How can we respond to that . In the concurring opinion in more versus kim. You were talking about criminal aliens. You said detention might become institutional if the government were using it for some purposes except its purpose, preventing flight risk and danger to the communities. If the officials believed he wanted to be there the end of the day, and if you could prove that, that would establish a constitutional claim under the theory. The other thing i could say if i could push on justice skindy kennedys comments. We have people who have very Constitutional Rights. Are you suggesting if the backlog is there for five years, its okay to keep them for five years for their determination whether they pose risk to flight and are dangerous. But you have to also say under your premise that its not unreasonable. I thought you agreed detention violates due process when theres a delay. This doesnt match. I would say a delay attributable to the aliens part. Five years of backlog or suppose the government decided to appeal from an adverse decision an that created a further delay of two or three years. Let me give you my most extreme answer and then a backup. The most extreme answer, the criminal alien always has the option of terminating the detention by accepting a final order of moving home. I take it, its your extreme answer because it doesnt sound that good . No, the other nuance to the extreme answer, congress has provided basis, and removal is nor discretionary relief for aliens confined un26c. Congress had no constitutional obligation to cre ate those in which an alien can remain in the country. No. Go ahead. Reporter congress could have said all the aliens who fit within the categories covered by 1226c will be removed without regard to discretionary forms of relieve. They will be unable. If Congress Takes that step, we will give you discretionary relief but our resources are in the and it may take a while to rule on your case. Excuse me. Looking at your supplemental supply brief, you say if it lasts more than 14 months it could prompt an occasion for a review. That sounds close to a concession. I could be wrong. What we are saying was in order to decide whether a case is an outlier look to evidence about how long does it apply to a particular chase. Underlied challenge and this particular stage took further than normally. Due to constraints, it became difficult in 1226c cases to take 12 years. I think i interrupted justice alito. Lets say there is a constitutional violation if there is a delay. What is the best way to deal with it . Impose a hard time limit . Would it be better to deal with it like speedy trial not speedy trial act, constitutional speedy trial claims where you look at all the particular factors of a particular case. It would be better to do the ladder route and several cases the court adopted bright line rules. The one i would focus on most intently i am not aware where the court has imsupposed a constitutional deadline. So much within control of the person who is asserting the constitutional right. Individual situation like a habeas. If we say habeas can look at it, the courts will look at. What are they going to look at . I think they will look at whether you unreasonably delayed and theres a possibility so lets give this person a bond hearing. The issue here is whether the constitution sincebly wouensibl give people a bond hearing after the hearing. And they could decide whether hes a National Security risk, committed a crime so heinous, he shouldnt get out because hes a danger to the community or picked up because they were in a suite. No criminal record, have strong ties to the community, own property, should be put out. Why put that person in a situation after a certain amounts of time, government, explain. If the constitution imposes a six or eight month deadline we think this is the place to say it. It depends on a variety of factors including that which the alien made the delay. If i can . Thank you, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. I think my friends presentation clarifies the difference between the parties in the case. They are two sides of the same coin. We fundamentally disagree with that position. It goes far beyond anything this court ever said with respect with the power to detain citizens. In 1986, the court first said there is a power to detain and they did so by analogizing to the precrime criminal process. You have the power to detain but only if necessary to insure the person appears or danger to the community. Similar in lawson v langley, to everybody facing deportation proceedings. You mentioned the pretrial detainee. There is nothing like six months requirement if somebody is being retained, the remedies the ninth circuit provided a hearing every six months. That is not provided to pretrial detainee es. Urn, lets leave that aside for an amount. The analogy is to the bond hearing you get someone days, promptly after your rest in the pretrial detention context. My friend is correct, the fact youre in deportation proceedings is enough to justify youre in detention. Congress could pass a law that mandated the detention of every person. We know that in arriving to the border. This was permissible as long as it was a matter of months. That it was a brief and conceded portability. The detention times are 8 or nine times. Our class members are detained a long time because theyre pursuing defenses. Many, 40 for the almost. Twothirds for arrivings, even when they were detained. I expect that number to go up. A significant difference about that time. I guess im les sure raas to th second factor. Many of yours are seeking cancellation of removal. It is not true of mr. Cam but if the court cited the case, he was thinking of withholding a removal and you can use your green card and deported to any country except for one, a weaker term of asylum protection. Half the removal class is eligible. If you keep that you keep your green card and never removed. Theres a fundamental difference. Those people get a path to positionship within that case. The court treated the con tegs of affordability like a flight risk and accepted it because the detention was brief. Er for. No. Im sorry. One is 1252 b9 you recall indicates congresss intent to strip the courts jurisdiction federal. What do you do about that . The ninth circuit was interpreting the statute, not restraining the statute. If we go down constitutional grounds, we would be sustaining the statute, at least a declaratory government and like the government. How do we handle those two . The government sayed repeatedly it doesnt change detention claims. It is after a remove. Order. We do not bar detention claims. As to f unfortunately not briefed and waived as far as the ninth circuit ruled. That would be an initial qui i dont have. It just goes to reneed xwral power. They will recognize there was a constitutional claim in the case at the time it issued its classification order. Never sought serb sertiorary. It also doesnt mention habeas at all in the ruling in demore v. Kim and since then amended the act. They put it in portions of two but didnt do it in f. I think thats a reasonable statutory argument. They viewed portability as a proxy for flight risk. What we know now, that leads us to our group of people who have substantial defenses, it is a horrible proxy for flight risk. We have people who have citizenship claims, married to u. S. Citizens and they have a petition. Theyre going to win their case. Theyre just waiting for the dhs to decide their petition. They get 10 months, nine months. We have alternative supervision now gets extremely extraordinary high appearance rate by immigration testimony. Whether you have the flight risk, it seems like the due process law in demore. They make a big point showing how short the time frames are. At the top end, only five months. But this case was six months. Does that mean your proposed remedy, a six months line doesnt fit with demore given we sent demore back and he continued to be detained. The Court Decides the claim to be argued. My position is i concede the first six months, it only became constitutional for that time period. Theres a long history in a criminal context with respect to petty to a serious one. He didnt argue that it requires because congress previously delegated more than six months. I dont think it controls the question, it is open. I have given you reason to understand why its a rule. This court has never authorized beyond National Security. I think it could do that. Demore doesnt say that. It says the vast outlier cases will be 4 1 2 months and most are 47 days. The court didnt understand. What the court does about backlogs and the way the immigration is structured, you have to take what they call a continuance. Would you clarify the relief youre seeking now. I dont know of any regime where someone being detained, has to be brought before a judge every six months. The pretrial detainees says an immediate bail hearing. Is there any . Yes, your honor. Yes . The governments own them. Two of them. 2 frown. 4 and 241. 4. The second one provides ig bond hearings. Not withstanding that, base they are a security threat. 241. 14 provides it every year. Its true six months is rare although they do it in that context. This is a group of unrepresented people. It can be done by congress, by regulation. Its quite something to find six months in the constitution. Why does it say six months in the constitution. Why isnt it six or five or eight . It doesnt say 15 days. Thats the only example within the power an the roll entity making the arrest. You arrest somebody you have 48 hours. You have to be short and it provides clarity. There are different factors that go into the question whether the delay is unreasonable, isnt that true. Congress previously denied the constitutionality in six months. In mcneil why do you say that Congress Ignored it. Im quoting, but the other item that arises from the fact. When detention is prolonged it is fundamentally different. What weve seen in a decade on the subject since demore, it didnt start out that way, it said it is unconstitutional if prolonged in 2005. There were more cases. I had a client in 2006. Another case bim another year later. The third sect, they construed the statute. They did that first. Four years later they hear other cases and they need a guide rule. Those are outlier cases. Concerns are heightened as you get beyond and extend the time pert. Six months, the time frame you selected. Give me some sense how afternoon that is an issue with respect to the broad base of people. If you look at the irr which they fight somewhere in their gree briefs. When they correct it, 90 of all cases in mandatory detention. Six months. F they are the outliars. Just taking the outliars, in many cases they are compiling an evidentiary record to substantiate their claim and should be taken out to consider how long it is. I suppose the governments alternative, which will take into account using the time in compiling a record now and interested getting out now, why doesnt the availability of individualized relief through habeas because youre dealing with a cases . You take a snapshot data on any given day, it was 400 people in the Central District of california. Some of whom weve been discussing there because theres compiling evidence to allow them to make a stronger case. Its not clear why that shunt be a consideration. Let me answer that question. We fundamentally disagree you get a hearing where the reason for the delay is because youre compiling a record and pursuing the leaf. If you want to give up and go home, a huge majority came here prior to the age of 21. 60 have u. S. Citizen children or spouses. If you want to leave, you can give up. If you want to apply for any relief or contest the charge, you do not have control. I understand, i think both the goethes point and your response, why you hold the key in your pocket and not satry in every case. The government not satisfactory in every case. The government is not responsible for all of the people detained. In the Central District of california. The district of california. The number of people not partially responsible is some small ir percentage of that. Figure as the number gets smaller and smaller, individual application other than unusual class wide relief becomes a more pat latable option. I think if the court were to hear you dont get a hearing in so far youre litigating your case, almost nobody will get out and the number of haib yowsz paeyowsz habeas. You control it in the sense of im thinking of the way we approach speedy trial claims deciding whether or not you have been deprived of a speedy trial. So on and so on. That is fundamentally misguided. The speedy trial act gives you release, if after you do the prosecution you described. The government has a separate operation to pursue a proceeding. Theres probably some speedy trial constraint in the process but we havent argued that. Even if you are litigating your case in good faith, mr. Rodrigues has a baby child at home, he missed the first part of life. All were saying is for that reason you should be able to get the rearing on due process grounds. You are pursuing dilatory tactics. You dont have a good claim here. I think you will be wearing an ankle record. That person gets detained. The other people not true, a lot of people in our class, those people should have the chance to make the case in front of an immigration judge. Why are you saying it should happen in six months instead of immediate . We love. The court thought a category gore call summarization was conceivable for those. That may be fine and you dont need that hearing on day one. Its taken a long time. Does that reflect the idea that there is a significant flight risk in this category of cases . Thats why theres the six month rule. From demore, Congress Said we disagree with this. The Congress Said there was 60 flight risk because of the lack of bed space station, that ship has passed. The court said thats sufficient justification, didnt foreclose. I am sure some individuals should be released before six month, between zr and six months . Would the class claims do that for individualized claims and we will be doing it for six months either way. We defined those that there may be people entitled to hearings before that. I dont read this as foreclosing that. The maximum most favorable relief we fought was hearings at six months. We foreclosed the claims we led but not for the ones we didnt ask for. We will still have individualized claims on six months. Between 12 months and four months. Why not . If detained on six months and conditions, i would want a habeas corpus. As a practical matter is is almost impossible get a person adjudicated. I would hope habeas petitions get preventer action. It takes 19 months. Was it finally adjudicated . Finally acted. Theyre assessing those and that takes time. Six months is not picked autodelivery of the air, where it was in six months. It was presumptively six months and you can say your continued detention is reasonable prior to six months or reasonable up to eight months. Now, how has that worked out . I assume it has worked out that the problems that have been raised are not overwhelming. For purposes of uniformity, which gives the government what it has many times in an order nary criminal ordinary criminal detention, it is not extreme, how has this worked out. These have worked owl well, it was resolved. It worked out well. Id be surprised if youve seen a competition. There is the rule and a lot of limitations on demore. Just to go back briefly, the immigration judge, if theyre the ones conducting the hearing. It takes them about 15 minutes. Because they have the merit case. The habeas corpus, part of our justification for rule of admin. Another lock at the detention after one month. After one year. It might be what was sufficient to detain at six months thats not sufficient after six years. Which is how long mr. Rodriguez took to finish. Its his fault. Hes trying to collage his claim. The government confesses error and remand its back. Hes pursuing relief and can go home to mexico. Which he hasnt been to since the age of one. I think their point was there are discrete periods where they are trying to compile a record. Theyre not saying because hes seeking relief theyre keeping him as long as they want. My broader point would be that the fact that hes pursuing relief, maybe its that shouldnt let that person out. The immigration judge did make ta assessment. If its a plausible claim. He shouldnt have to be locked up. Can i go to the 12th procedural question. Before suppose we reject your constitutional avoidance question, would there be any impediment to the seeking. If we remand it to the ninth sur cute. First view of the constitutionality . Obviously the court could do that. Certainly. Its within its power to do that. Im not sure if thats were continuing to press the construction claim as well. Yes, the court could do that. The ninth sur cute viewed the a relief necessary. The purpose of the hearings is make sure the detention serves it purpose. I can come back for number three. Can i ask a practical question . I have seen this statistics that since the ninth scircuit order, under. 1226 a category, there have been more people released than previously. Why . Under 1226 a, you get bail hearing before an ins judge. The burden is on the immigrant to prove that theyre not a flight risk and are not a danger to the community. And they can make a motion to have that situation relooked at. I have two guesses, your honor. Sorry. And so what is it that has changed the out come so much . Im not actually aware of the particular statistics. But my two guesses is there might be more releases. One is the burden shift after six months even for 12126 a. And they get also a rirpt requirement that alternative to detainment. And second, as a practical matter we know you can see in the declaration and the inlander, even people who are eligible under changed circumstances they dont have lawyers. They dont know the rule. They dont read the regulation. When you have a periodic hearing the people get the hearing automatically and access to the court. Statutory. I dont get the statutory part on the second part. Which is the criminals they finish the sentence. Finish after the final deportation order. You can only keep them six mornts looking for a country. In between the time theyre reloosed. Theres no final deportation order, cope them for months and months without a bail hearing. The statute says shall take them into custody, when hes released from prison time, and it says the attorney general may release only if basically the ag is necessary witness protection. I cant figure out a way how do you interpret the statute to get around that. Ill briefly. We have nothing now say on the subject. The two arguments were your honor decision require the congress be clear terms to offer prolong detention. We know that congress understood this in the patriot act they did authorize detention beyond six months for pending questions. Thats the argument. If i can turn briefly to the arrivings. First, my friend twice in the briefs cited matter of excay. It was a description of the law. The question whether you do get a bond hearing under 1226 a if you cross in the desert and shortly after our arrested, but pass the credible fear interview. They i thought they had endorsed that. They say in the brief. He now relies on the regulation. If you look at the opening brief on this question. Its unanswered by the government. The problem with the regulation with relying on the regulation the statute 1226 a says attorney general in it. The attorney general cannot then turn around sdp give authority to the dhs. If the Congress Gave it to the attorney general the attorney general delegate has to exercise that. Thats the decision in matter of gar si ya. The Immigration Judges are the attorney generals delegates. They have to decide as a statutory matter if somebody passes the credible fear interview whether they are entitled to are lease on bond. Thats the best reading of the statute period. As we discussed last time Justice Kennedy theres a neighboring provision for people denied credible fear. You shall denied pending. This says shall be detained before the proceeding. Like im in line for a movie. Or studying for an examine. Certainly if you read the constitution question if you cant put them to hard labor and cant torture of shoot them, you also cant detain them for no reason whatsoever. The government con seeds i took my friend to be saying we agree or at least in practice. Not a constitutional matter. We release the people who are not danger or flight risk after they pass the credible fear swer view. Our constitutional dispute is narrow. Its just whether the jailer gets to make the decision. Instead the neutral the immigration judge. Who got the case. Should be the one making the decision. We both agree if theyre not a danger or flight risk and passed a fear interview they should get out. As we saw, twothirds of the class the people who passed a credible fear interview they went asylum. Even with when theyre detained. Talking about a class of people who from fled horrific persecution. And that situation, we think its entirely appropriate for the court to find that those people have a right to be free from arbitrary detention. Thats the reason we request the court affirm the injunction to arrivings and everybody else. Thank you, counsel. Two minutes. Thank you chief justice. Id like to focus on the criminal aliens. I spent most of my initial time on the arriving. Referred to the correction of the statistics that were before the court in. Its important to emphasize that most of what the court thought to be true at the time of demorphs true. S the court said this detention has a natural stopping point. Thats true. The court said the large majority of cases the decision is not appealed and in the cases the average sdp median times of detention are a month. That was true. The one respect in which the detention times have turned out to be much longer than the court in demor thought they were. In the category of cases around 10 to 15 . An appeal is taken. The large mashlgty of those cases are involving an alien who loses and takes his own appeal. To the extent the court was misinformed about the statistics its really in a category of cases where its the ayen aliens choice that causes a further stage of the proceedings to be triggered. Thats not saying the alien is at fault. The court should use the same method as it does under the speedy trial act. In determines whether delay has been undo. The court focuses on the reasons for the delay whether its a attributable to improper act by the government. Opposing counsel says really the constitutional dispute is to the a rooifi arriving aliens crystallized. Thank you, counsel. Case is submitted. We hear the human stories and constitutional drama behind 12 frequently cited cases heard by the high court. Landmark cases live ob on cspan. Beginning in february. Chad readler was Justice DepartmentCivil Division talked about the clause. And the role of the constitution. Mr. Reader previously served as mr. Trumps campaign attorney the defense attorney 2016 election. From ash Land University in ohio. This is 35 minutes. Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon. Welcome to the ash brook center. At ash Land University. As you all know were here to celebrate constitution day. This sunday, september 17 marks the 230th anniversary. Of the date when the delegates in fill did he feel concluded the work of the constitutional convention. And sent it to the people. Beginning one of the greatest ten month debates in american history. Over the ratification