Breaking News

Supreme Court Invalidates Law That Requires Deportation of Immigrants Who Commit Crimes
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Summary: The Supreme Court said that a law that requires immigrants to be deported after criminal convictions was “unconstitutionally vague.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a law that requires immigrants convicted of violent crimes to be deported was unconstitutionally vague. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, started during the Obama administration, according to CNN.

  
What
Where


This case was heavily watched because of President Donald Trump’s staunch stance against immigration. Since he has taken office, he has ramped up illegal immigration raids and pushed for travel bans from certain countries, and fighting illegal immigration has been one of his major platforms.

Conservative judge, Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by Trump, joined the more liberal justices in the decision to invalidate the law. In a vote that was 5-4, the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutionally unfair to deport immigrants who committed “crimes of violence.”

The case involved legal immigrant, James Garcia Dimaya, who hailed from the Phillippines. He was allowed into the US in 1992 when he was a teenager, and he became a lawful permanent resident. Decades later,  he pleaded no contest to charges related to a burglary in California, and after his conviction, the Obama administration began deportation proceedings in 2010.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!




Dimaya appealed, saying that he did not know that being convicted for an “aggravated felony” meant that he could be deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and his case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court. It had previously been ruled over by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they had sided with Dimaya.

During the proceedings, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued for the Trump administration.



“I think it is important for the court to understand that immigration provisions and grounds for deportation are often written in very broad and general terms and given content by the executive branch in which Congress has vested authority,” Kneedler said.

This case was the first time Gorsuch sided with his liberal counterparts, according to Slate, and his decision has some likening him to the late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who was conservative but had an independent streak.

Gorsuch joined liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan; and Kagan wrote that their decision was based on the 2015 case Johnson v. the United States that concerned due process. The government had argued that case was different from Dimaya’s because it was a civil case, not a criminal one, but Kagan said that both instances involved vagueness in deportation law.

“From there, Kagan easily found that this residual clause deprives immigrants of fair notice as to what qualifies as a “crime of violence.” She pointed to judicial disagreement over what crimes count: Some federal appeals courts have found that car burglary, statutory rape, evading arrest, residential trespass, unauthorized use of a vehicle, stalking, and firearms possessions are crimes of violence. Other appeals courts have reached opposite conclusions. These examples, Kagan explained, illustrate that the law produces “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,”” Slate wrote.

What do you think about this case? Let us know in the comments below.



 

Interesting Legal Sites You May Like


BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Mid- to Senior Level Litigation Attorney

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office is seeking a mid to senior level litigation attorney. Experience can range from g...

Apply Now

Junior Litigation Attorney with experience

USA-TX-Dallas

Dallas office is seeking a junior litigation attorney, class of 2016-2018. Candidate should have jud...

Apply Now

Corporate Attorney with 10-20 years of general business experience

USA-CA-Pasadena

Pasadena office of our client seeks Corporate Attorney with 10-20 years of experience in general bus...

Apply Now

Attorney

USA-DC-Washington

Washington, D.C. office of our client seeks attorney with 1-3 years of experience. The candidate wil...

Apply Now

RELEVANT JOBS

Corporate / Commercial Attorney | Lebanon, NH

USA-NH-Lebanon

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC seeks an experienced corporate / commercial attorney to join its Lebanon o...

Apply now

Business Law Junior Associate | Burlington, VT

USA-VT-Burlington

Downs Rachlin Martin seeks associate attorney with 1-3 years of experience to join its Commercial an...

Apply now

Business Law Associate | Burlington

USA-VT-Burlington

Downs Rachlin Martin is seeking an attorney with 4 to 8 years of experience to join its very busy pr...

Apply now

Litigation Associate

USA-NY-New York City

Midtown Manhattan litigation boutique with diverse civil litigation practice seeking associate with ...

Apply now

Most Popular

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top