The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case concerning Arizona's ban on undocumented immigrants being granted bail. By doing so, the previous court's ruling that overturning the ban will stand.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted six against and three in favor of hearing County of Maricopa, Arizona v. Angel Lopez Valenzuela on Monday, June 1. A minimum of four votes was needed to hear the case. The highest court, as it is customary, did not give a reason as to why it refused the case. However, the three dissenting judges, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, explained their dissenting votes.

In 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Arizona's Proposition 100 amendment, which prevented undocumented immigrants arrested for any crime from being granted bail. Proposition 100 was passed via referendum in 2006 as an amendment to the state's constitution.

This decision came after a 2011 decision by the same court upholding Proposition 100. The American Civil Liberties Union appealed for the court to review its decision.

Judge Thomas decried his colleagues' decision to not hear, what he deemed, an important case on the matter of states' laws and how they should be contested.

"States deserve our careful consideration when lower courts invalidate their constitutional provisions. After all, that is the approach we take when lower courts hold federal statutes unconstitutional," he wrote

The judge went to on to recall the country's judicial history, in which Congress would ask the Supreme Court to review cases similar to the one the Court refused to hear.

"Our indifference to cases such as this one will only embolden the lower courts to reject state laws on questionable constitutional grounds," Judge Thomas continued.

He pointed out that state laws had come under greater scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause than federal law's under the Fifth Amendment's sister clause.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its initial decision on the ban citing the same clause.

"We hold that the Proposition 100 laws violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on these two independent grounds," wrote Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher at the time.

Citing United States v. Salerno, which states "[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception," the appeals court rejected the state of Arizona's argument.

"The Proposition 100 laws do not address an established "particularly acute problem," are not limited to "a specific category of extremely serious offenses," and do not afford the individualized determination of flight risk or dangerousness that Salerno deemed essential," Judge Fisher explained, adding that the law's are "excessive in relation to the state's legitimate interest in assuring arrestees' presence for trial.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the ACLU of Arizona, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, lauded the court.

"Today's order from the Supreme Court lets our victory over Proposition 100 stand. Arizona officials who tried to strip people of a bail hearing and the presumption of innocence have reached the end of the road. Laws that are driven by fear-mongering rather than facts are bad policy and violate everyone's civil liberties," director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, Cecilia Wang, said in a statement to Latin Post.