Court Opinion

ID: 9797021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:11:17.706129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:04.484062
License: Public Domain

A. JOHNSON, Judge,
Coneur in Results:
T1 I concur with those portions of this opinion that find Judge Bass had authority to commit Petitioners to custody of the county sheriff for notification of Bureau of Immigra*736tion and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security. I also concur with the portions of the opinion finding that onee the Department failed to timely respond to the sheriffs notification by assuming custody of Petitioners within the time allowed by federal law, no further detention was warranted by the law of this State. I therefore fully concur with the opinion to the extent it concludes that the Petitioners have shown that their ongoing confinement by the Respondents is without any state authority and that they are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. Lastly, for the reasons stated by the majority, I agree that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate an entitlement to a writ of prohibition.
12 I cannot agree, however, with those portions of the majority opinion that: (1) purport to address the propriety of a judge questioning a defendant about his or her citizenship status; (2) reach the sweeping constitutional conclusion by mere assertion that "[nlo statute, administrative rule or executive order can constitutionally require or allow" a judge to inquire from the bench, into any violations of law that are not the subject of the case or controversy before the court; and (8) comment on the wisdom of releasing aliens from state detention when it is not even clear that they would be held in detention by federal authorities while their immigration status is being adjudicated under federal law.
13 The necessary question presented for decision in this case is not under what circumstances a judge may question a defendant about his or her citizenship status, nor is it whether the courts of this State are "agencies" that may be constitutionally subjected to certain legislative enactments. The only question to be answered here, as in any habeas action, is simply whether the Petitioners' detention is lawful. Discussion of these other matters has no bearing on the legality of the Petitioners' detention, and therefore, in my view, constitutes dictum at best and an unconstitutional advisory opinion at worst.