That is really pretty much the question. I did search GQ, but the only discussion I found was very brief and discussed the plain text of the amendments. However, is there any case law that establishes that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens within the borders of the United States?
Much of the Bill of Rights is framed in terms of things Congress may not do. Congress shall make no law…
No reason those would not apply to foreign visitors.
Not exactly in the Bill of Rights, but there is case law about how the 14th Amendment applies to non-citizens. That Amendment, in part, reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Courts have interpreted “person” to include non-citizens.
Recently SCOTUS ruled that non-citizens have a right to competent counsel to advise them on how a guilty plea may affect any possible deportation proceeding. See Padilla v. Kentucky That right to counsel is rooted in the 6th Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights.
And to the extent that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to “any person” then it would cover the protections afforded under the Bill of Rights.
non-citizens who are arrested do not have the right to a court appointed attorney I believe. They have to pay for one themselves or do without. At least that is true of illegal immigrants in detention centres, not sure if the same is true if someone legally in the US on a tourist visa commits a serious crime?
That’s because immigration hearings are civil matters. A non-citizen accused of a crime would have a right to an attorney.
Immigration hearings, not being criminal proceedings, have different standards about access to counsel. An illegal immigrant accused of a serious crime and charged in state or federal court with a felony most certainly does have the same rights to court-appointed counsel as any other defendant in the United States.
No, not 100%. For example, non-immigrant aliens may not purchase or possess firearms unless they hold a state-issued hunting license. Most states will not issue concealed handgun licenses to non-citizens.
Have these issues been held by SCOTUS?
AFAIK there was nothing limiting non-citizen’s rights in Heller which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self defense.
Second Amendment case law is a bit spartan. *Heller *was the first case since United States v Miller in 1939 to directly address the scope of the Second Amendment.
It would be interesting to see how such state laws would hold up under a challenge at the supreme court level. My guess would be that under Heller (given SCOTUS’s rationale that the 2nd amendment right is unconnected to militias), such a restriction would likely be held unconstitutional. But then again, I don’t think the 2nd amendment rights of nin-citizens is an issue that the NRA or other gun rights groups are eager to test in courts.
No. But that’s not how constitutional law works. Legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional. The rights of non-immigrants or non-citizens were not at issue in Heller. SCOTUS might very conclude that the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens, but unless it does it would be presumed that it does not. It’s very unlikely that SCOTUS would conclude the Second Amendment applies to non-immigrants since they would not fall within the body from which the militia would be drawn (Scalia’s rather ridiculous prefatory clause claims aside).