In appealing the magistrate's order to the court, defendant argued first that the extradition treaty with Israel made reliance on the Law of Return useless. Defendant went on to argue that invoking the Law of Return violated his equal protection rights. The brief argues that a rule which treats Jews differently is subject to strict scrutiny. It went on:
The government clearly has a compelling interest in insuring that defendants are present at trial.... But it has no compelling interest in a rule that Jews are a heightened bail risk, for the simple reason that is has failed to demonstrate any statistical correlation between Jews and flight risk. In other words, the government introduced no evidence that Jews are more likely to flee because of the Law of Return than non-Jews. An unproven assumption is fatal in a case subject to strict scrutiny.... Moreover, there are clearly narrower, tailored measures, that would be effective rather than subjecting Jews to a different set of standards.JTA reported on these developments yesterday.
UPDATE: Here is the full text of the magistrate's Nov. 20, 2008 Order for Detention denying bail, thanks to Volokh Conspiracy.