In a decision issued this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal government has, for more than three decades, drawn a clear legal distinction between immigrants apprehended at the border and those detained after living inside the United States. That long-standing practice, the court said, has been abandoned under the current administration’s approach.

Historically, immigrants caught at the border have faced rapid detention and removal, often without a court hearing. Those already living within the U.S., by contrast, have generally been permitted to post bond and remain with their families while their immigration cases are pending.

The Trump administration has erased that distinction, treating both groups the same way — a shift that has packed immigration detention facilities beyond capacity and flooded federal courts with thousands of petitions from detainees seeking release, according to court records and prior CalMatters reporting.

Writing for the majority, Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress — a Trump appointee — noted that some of the immigrants swept up in the policy have lived in the United States for years. While acknowledging that federal immigration statutes contain conflicting language on the issue, Bress pointed to decades of consistent government practice as the deciding factor.

“We have 30 years of action here — the government has actively treated undocumented immigrants present in the interior of the country as people entitled to bond hearings,” Bress wrote in the opinion.

The case originated with immigrants held in the Seattle area, but the ruling applies broadly across the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which covers much of the western United States, including California.

The panel’s decision was far from unanimous, splitting 2-1, underscoring a broader divide among federal courts nationwide over how to interpret detention law for immigrants living inside the country. Given that lower courts have reached conflicting conclusions on the matter, legal observers expect the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be asked to weigh in and settle the question.

CalMatters reporter Lynn La contributed to this report.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Court Rules Trump’s Mass Immigrant Detention Policy Breaks With 30 Years of Legal Precedent appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that Attila Colar did not receive a fair trial because the judge overseeing the 2023 proceedings permitted a juror to remain on the panel despite clear signs the person could not be impartial. The decision opens the door for prosecutors to retry Colar, though the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California has not said whether it plans to do so.

Colar’s case first drew widespread attention through a 2023 CalMatters investigation into California’s parolee rehabilitation programs. That reporting examined Colar’s Bay Area operation, All Hands on Deck, as part of a broader look at how the state has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into rehabilitation efforts for former inmates without being able to show whether those programs actually reduce crime or help participants find steady work.

Colar was convicted in 2023 on 44 felony counts tied to fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program applications and efforts to obstruct a federal investigation into his business dealings.

During portions of his trial, Colar represented himself and questioned prospective jurors about whether they believed law enforcement had a history of targeting Black religious organizations. Colar, who is Black and Muslim, made several comments suggesting he believed he had been unfairly singled out by authorities.

One juror pushed back sharply against those remarks, telling the court that whenever Colar spoke, he heard only “discrimination, conspiracy theories, and police corruption.” While the juror said he could remain fair and noted he had faced discrimination in his own life, he also expressed clear doubt about Colar’s claims of police misconduct and bias.

Colar’s attorneys objected to keeping that juror on the panel, but the trial judge declined to remove him. Weeks later, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit determined that the juror’s comments went beyond ordinary skepticism and reflected a personal bias he admitted he could not set aside. The appellate judges wrote that his views were shaped by his own experiences and emotions, and that he had been direct with the court about his inability to remain neutral on the subject.

With the conviction vacated, Colar’s case now returns to square one, and prosecutors will have to decide whether to bring the charges again. The outcome could have broader implications for how California oversees privately run rehabilitation programs that receive public funding but face little independent scrutiny over their effectiveness.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Bay Area Man’s $1 Million COVID Fraud Conviction Overturned Amid Juror Bias Concerns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.