Think it's illegal to be stuck in jail without bail for 3 years for a misdemeanor? Nope.

Alejandro Rodriguez has lived in the United States. since he was 1 year old. He’s a father now, and until recently, worked as a dental assistant. So why — after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor more than 15 years ago — did it take three years for him to get a bond hearing?

That’s right: Rodriguez wasn’t serving a 3-year sentence. He was simply waiting to see a judge to find out what his bail might be.

Even more suprising? The Supreme Court declared last week that this treatment of him was all perfectly legal.


See, even though Rodriguez is a legal permanent resident, SCOTUS just announced that immigrants — including asylum seekers and green card holders — do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

The ruling comes from the Jennings v. Rodriguez case, in which Rodriguez was the lead plaintiff. And the whole thing is way more complicated than you’e ever expect.

But let’s back up. Back in 2004, the Department of Homeland Security placed Rodriguez in immigration detention for three years after he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for drug possession. (In 1998, he was also convicted for “joyriding.”)

And we know how that turned out.

In 2007, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Rodriguez filed a lawsuit stating that he had the right to a bond hearing. In response, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled immigrant detainees do have a constitutional right to a bond hearing. But that ruling was ultimately reversed on Feb. 27, 2018.

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court said that “immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country.”

When the SCOTUS ruling was announced last week, it prompted mass outrage from immigration advocates and progressive political commentators.

But according to two immigration attorneys who spoke with Upworthy, this outsized response is born out of disinformation from media coverage about the case. A big misunderstanding can be pointed to news headlines that suggest the decision could lead to the indefinite detention of immigrants.

According to Diego Aranda Teixeira, an immigration attorney who is administered in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is where the Jennings v. Rodriguez case will be heard next), the SCOTUS ruling does not allow for immigrants to be detained indefinitely.

“This decision does not make it possible to detain all immigrants forever,” Teixeira says.

The ruling is far more narrow than what has been reported. The Jennings v. Rodriguez case was based on the concern of indiscriminate administrative bond hearings for detained non-citizens with a criminal background.

“Before that, in [the Ninth Circuit], only people who had not been detained at or near the time and place of crossing a border or asking for admission, who were not in categories of people mandatorily detained for certain reasons largely related to criminal history, and who were not detained to enforce an existing removal order, very broadly speaking, you had the right to one bond hearing if detained,” Teixeira added.

In other words, the SCOTUS ruling does not “greenlight” indefinite detention for immigrants.

While Michael Edelman, an attorney based in Philadelphia, believes it is “egregious” to detain people as a “human rights matter,” he agrees with Teixeira’s assessment.

According to Edelman, the decision not apply to all immigrants since a lot of other SCOTUS cases already and explicitly “protect the vast majority of immigrants from indefinite, hearing-less detention.”

“The decision says that certain immigrants can be detained throughout the duration of their immigration proceeds,” Edelman added. “That is all.”

Here’s what happens next.

Well, the Jennings v. Rodriguez case has now gone back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are several outcomes to this. The Ninth Circuit, which is considered to be quite progressive, could say that denying bond hearings to immigrant detainees is a violation of their constitutional right.

The Ninth Circuit could also propose other solutions for administrative bond hearings on a case by case solution based on the detainees in question.

But for now, the door remains open in finding an answer to the issue of prolonged detention. If the Ninth Circuit comes to a new decision, and has to go back to the Supreme Court, Teixeira says a lot of immigrant detainees who had their bonds are going to remain detained until the new decision is taken or another new lawsuit is filed.

“It would have been far better for SCOTUS to affirm the Ninth Circuit, I feel,” Teixeira added. As of right now, there isn’t much to do to challenge the decision except to wait.

When "bobcat" trended on Twitter this week, no one anticipated the unreal series of events they were about to witness. The bizarre bobcat encounter was captured on a security cam video and...well...you just have to see it. (Read the following description if you want to be prepared, or skip down to the video if you want to be surprised. I promise, it's a wild ride either way.)

In a North Carolina neighborhood that looks like a present-day Pleasantville, a man carries a cup of coffee and a plate of brownies out to his car. "Good mornin!" he calls cheerfully to a neighbor jogging by. As he sets his coffee cup on the hood of the car, he says, "I need to wash my car." Well, shucks. His wife enters the camera frame on the other side of the car.

So far, it's just about the most classic modern Americana scene imaginable. And then...

A horrifying "rrrrawwwww!" Blood-curdling screaming. Running. Panic. The man abandons the brownies, races to his wife's side of the car, then emerges with an animal in his hands. He holds the creature up like Rafiki holding up Simba, then yells in its face, "Oh my god! It's a bobcat! Oh my god!"

Then he hucks the bobcat across the yard with all his might.

Keep Reading Show less
Images courtesy of John Scully, Walden University, Ingrid Scully
True

Since March of 2020, over 29 million Americans have been diagnosed with COVID-19, according to the CDC. Over 540,000 have died in the United States as this unprecedented pandemic has swept the globe. And yet, by the end of 2020, it looked like science was winning: vaccines had been developed.

In celebration of the power of science we spoke to three people: an individual, a medical provider, and a vaccine scientist about how vaccines have impacted them throughout their lives. Here are their answers:

John Scully, 79, resident of Florida

Photo courtesy of John Scully

When John Scully was born, America was in the midst of an epidemic: tens of thousands of children in the United States were falling ill with paralytic poliomyelitis — otherwise known as polio, a disease that attacks the central nervous system and often leaves its victims partially or fully paralyzed.

"As kids, we were all afraid of getting polio," he says, "because if you got polio, you could end up in the dreaded iron lung and we were all terrified of those." Iron lungs were respirators that enclosed most of a person's body; people with severe cases often would end up in these respirators as they fought for their lives.

John remembers going to see matinee showings of cowboy movies on Saturdays and, before the movie, shorts would run. "Usually they showed the news," he says, "but I just remember seeing this one clip warning us about polio and it just showed all these kids in iron lungs." If kids survived the iron lung, they'd often come back to school on crutches, in leg braces, or in wheelchairs.

"We all tried to be really careful in the summer — or, as we called it back then, 'polio season,''" John says. This was because every year around Memorial Day, major outbreaks would begin to emerge and they'd spike sometime around August. People weren't really sure how the disease spread at the time, but many believed it traveled through the water. There was no cure — and every child was susceptible to getting sick with it.

"We couldn't swim in hot weather," he remembers, "and the municipal outdoor pool would close down in August."

Then, in 1954 clinical trials began for Dr. Jonas Salk's vaccine against polio and within a year, his vaccine was announced safe. "I got that vaccine at school," John says. Within two years, U.S. polio cases had dropped 85-95 percent — even before a second vaccine was developed by Dr. Albert Sabin in the 1960s. "I remember how much better things got after the vaccines came out. They changed everything," John says.

Keep Reading Show less