well here the next case alaska lopez versus decker yes good morning in may it please the court christopher connelly from the u s attorney's office on behalf of the government in every case where i considered the issue the supreme court has affirmed the constitutionality of detention incident to removal proceedings and in doing so the court has never placed the burden on the government to justify continued detention at a bond hearing much less by clear and convincing evidence not only has the supreme court upheld mechanisms for release on bond in which the alien bears the burden of justifying released but it is routinely authorized detention where an individual's flight risk and dangerousness  attorney general to exercise discretion in this fear is valid if it advances a legitimate government purpose and rd detention may become too showy permissible even absent any individualized review all of these points weigh heavily against the heightened burden that the district court placed on the government here does that which you say that's true after an extended period of time such as the fourteen months of detention that we had here name that remains true even that after that extended period of time out of the these principles articulated by the supreme court and its immigration detention case law would would still appl six a and related regulation or for evaluating place risk in dangerousness an individual who is subject to detention pursuant to that provision unlike some of the other detention provision is entitled to st a custody review before an ice officer nd a bond hearing before an immigration judge rd an appeal to the board of immigration appeals and even after all of that is completed detain or release most aliens during the pendency of their proceedings and i've gone through the three levels of review the possibility of additional review but go into that i couldn't hear jennings which was a statutory construction case but justice alito explicitly said that the court wasn't addressing the constitutional questions that were pivotal for the district court here why should our court  you question because it's a question the answer to which on interested in is well absolutely your honor let me make sure that i'm ok understood your honor do you agree with that proposition yes because due to settle the constitutional issues were not decided by jennings that's that's correct that was dealing with constitutional avoidance not the constitutional asserts that those cases are still valid i think particularly since this court is not bound by by that night circuit precedent it's worth considering judge fernandez's dissent and that item on case which discusses why in his a brief consideration citing to the rodriguez case it's not necessarily determinative of the outcome here in the government's view why why was that brief analysis wrong  in your opinion well the reason set forth in our in our brief your honor and st of all with respect to the supreme court case law again the broad principles that come out of that case law are the overall validity perhaps perhaps it's worth considering some of the factual errors of the practical reasons why why the current pardon allocation is is likely to to satisfy the nappies factors and you have the when making these bond determinations and a lot of those factors particularly the ones going to to place rest deal with things like the individual fixed address family situation ties to the community work history education history things that are going to be primarily in the possession of the alien and not the government and indeed here mr glasgow explained that he put into luminous information concerning concerning his background if the burden was on the government as opposed  to mr glasgow aliens would would be unlikely to have any incentive to provide that kind of information which is important for the immigration d judge to make his decision indeed even with respect to dangerousness and issues of criminal history it's clear that mr glasgow did have information that he that he provided to the court couldn't charging documents and arrest records that the court found necessary to to make that evaluation he he disagrees he disagreed with the need to put those in and with the ultimate weight that the immigration judge gave to them but it wasn't the case that as a practical matter this was not information that he was able to provide to give a full record to the immigration court to to make are not represented by counsel many cases they are incarcerated at facilities that are in a considerable distance from where they live and honor that may that may well be the case in in any number of situations certainly that's true but those would be impediments to to this process regardless of where  where the burden is place and certainly even in those situations there would be ability presumably for an individual to set forth the kinds of the kinds of information that's going to be the well established standards about what constitutes a constitutionally adequate bond hearing when somebody is liberty has a stake in the standards were followed by the court and lara following constitutional analysis and finally all that the government rely heavily on do more and carlson in particular and at briefing these cases involve different challenge and narrow detention statutes where dangerousness could be presumed based on specific criteria  and these cases don't support a presumption that an individual who falls within one thousand two hundred and twenty six a which is a very broad detention that you that can be applied to the one million plus individuals who are in removal proceedings right now  there's no reason to to presume that those individuals are dangerous or flight risk so just turning to the st question about the current procedures and immigration detention and how on proceedings work  so immigration detainees are locked in jails and other secure facilities they're made to raid jumpsuits of their subjected to severe restrictions on their movement and contact with the outside world so in this are now from the pretrial detention contacts they themselves rely on immigration precedents as another example in which there are important individual interests  civil commitment context where indefinite detention is possible there are still regular review and heightened standards don't kick in when when the detention begin to appear to be  well those issues were not raised before the supreme court so it would have had to go out of its way to grab at a constitutional issue that was an argued before it the only case in which the burden of proof and the friend to the political branches about the substance of immigration policy but the procedures that have to be ample procedural safeguards to deprive an individual  of an important interest and that's just that's clear throughout the case so in conclusion i think it's just stepping back in court to reflect on what it would mean to accept the government's position immigration detention case law and its case law on the other civil commitments hears the cases that addington and some of the others civil commitment cases say from the immigration context are are in very different circumstances there is would be which talks about the standard for removing an individual and the other two cases have to do with the with the naturalization in other words you have a citizen and the standard that the government is going to need to  meet in order to to strip someone of their of their citizenship those are very different circumstances than what we have here which is the burden for detention during the limited period of time required to complete