U.S. Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons

By Andrew Chung

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that an immigration statute requiring the deportation of noncitizens who commit felonies is unlawfully vague in a decision that could limit the Trump administration's ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records. 

 

WASHINGTON - A provision in U.S. law requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of crimes of violence is unconstitutionally vague, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a decision that could hinder the Trump administration's ability to step up the removal of immigrants with criminal records.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling in which President Donald Trump's conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices, invalidated the provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act and sided with convicted California burglar James Garcia Dimaya, a legal immigrant from the Philippines.

 

The ruling, written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, was decried by the administration, which had defended the provision.

 

Federal authorities had ordered Dimaya deported after he was convicted in two California home burglaries, in 2007 and 2009, though neither crime involved violence.

 

Kagan said the disputed provision's ambiguity created confusion in lower courts. "Does car burglary qualify as a violent felony?" Kagan wrote. "Some courts say yes, another says no." Kagan mentioned other examples including rape, evading arrest and trespassing in which courts have also been divided.

 

Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, wrote that the American colonies in the 18th century cited vague English law like the crime of treason as among the reasons for the American revolution.

 

"Today's vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same - by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up," Gorsuch added.

 

It was not entirely surprising that Gorsuch would break with the four other conservatives on the court and vote to strike down the provision.

 

Gorsuch is ideologically aligned with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who he replaced on the court last year. Scalia wrote a 2015 ruling that was invoked in Tuesday's decision that found that a similar provision in a federal criminal sentencing law was overly broad.

 

Gorsuch interpreted the immigration provision based on the original understanding of the Constitution, a view held by many conservative jurists.

 

'SAFE HAVEN FOR CRIMINALS'

"Today's ruling significantly undermines DHS's efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and burglary, from the United States," U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton said.

 

"By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result," Houlton added.

 

Trump called on Congress to pass legislation. "Today's Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons," Trump said on Twitter.

 

The Supreme Court upheld a 2015 lower court ruling that the provision requiring Dimaya's deportation created uncertainty over which crimes may be considered violent, risking arbitrary enforcement in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The court issued the ruling at a time of intense focus on immigration issues in the United States as Trump seeks to increase deportations of immigrants who have committed crimes, though it was former President Barack Obama's administration that sought to deport Dimaya.

 

Dimaya's attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, said the decision strikes down a law that has over decades led to the deportation of thousands of immigrants. "The Supreme Court delivered a resounding message today: You can't banish a person from his home and family without clear lines, announced up front," Rosenkranz said.

 

Dimaya came to the United States from the Philippines as a legal permanent resident in 1992 at age 13. He lived in the San Francisco Bay area.

 

In 2010, the government sought to deport Dimaya. A Justice Department board refused to cancel his expulsion because the relevant law defined burglary as a "crime of violence." In the federal criminal code, a "crime of violence" includes offenses in which force either was used or carried a "substantial risk" that it would be used.

 

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that the definition as applied to legal immigrants was so vague that it violated their rights to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution.

 

In a dissenting opinion on Tuesday, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said the immigration law provision at issue should have been upheld. Roberts said the ruling will have significant ramifications because the same "crime of violence" definition is used in numerous other laws, including using or carrying firearms during a violent crime, and could call into question convictions under them.

 

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Oct. 2, the first day of its current nine-month term. The court initially heard arguments in January 2017 when it was one justice short, but decided last June after Gorsuch brought the court to full strength to have the case re-argued, putting him in a position to cast the deciding vote.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-18

[khwaibah]

17 minutes ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump's conservative appointee Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal justices

 

That backfired . 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Scott

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[Langsuan Man]

Anybody got the box scores for Trump versus SCOTUS ?

[BobBKK]

What is possibly wrong with deporting illegal felons?  amazing

[gk10002000]

why are there such strong provisions against deportation?  Most countries can deport people for just about any reason.

[samran]

It seems that for some the constitution is precious...until it’s not.

[Credo]

51 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What is possibly wrong with deporting illegal felons?  amazing

 

43 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

why are there such strong provisions against deportation?  Most countries can deport people for just about any reason.

Deportation is a legal process.   First the person needs to be eligible for deportation, including showing that there is no compelling reason for not deporting, there is also a series of hearings before there is an order for deportation.   The country where they are being deported to also has to agree to accept them (some countries simply won't).

 

In this situation, the law that the Supreme Court was looking at was considered to be to vague to be used as the grounds for deportation.   That is all that Court looked at.   I doubt they care one way or the other if he is deported, but they do care that it is done legally and the applicable laws are clear.   

 

 

[Scott]

Please note that this is about a legal immigrant and a law that is considered by the court to be too vague.

 

Quote

a legal immigrant from the Philippines.

 

[BobBKK]

14 minutes ago, Credo said:

 

Deportation is a legal process.   First the person needs to be eligible for deportation, including showing that there is no compelling reason for not deporting, there is also a series of hearings before there is an order for deportation.   The country where they are being deported to also has to agree to accept them (some countries simply won't).

 

In this situation, the law that the Supreme Court was looking at was considered to be to vague to be used as the grounds for deportation.   That is all that Court looked at.   I doubt they care one way or the other if he is deported, but they do care that it is done legally and the applicable laws are clear.   

 

 

Good points but if they are 'illegal' then they must have a country of birth to which they are citizens and that's where they belong. Personally I don't really get all this protectionism of someone who is somewhere illegally. The law should be exacted without bias nor favour. Either they have the docs to be in the USA or they do not and if they are convicted for a felony it's a no brainer.

[Credo]

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Good points but if they are 'illegal' then they must have a country of birth to which they are citizens and that's where they belong. Personally I don't really get all this protectionism of someone who is somewhere illegally. The law should be exacted without bias nor favour. Either they have the docs to be in the USA or they do not and if they are convicted for a felony it's a no brainer.

He is in the US legally.   He is a legal immigrant, which probably means he is a permanent resident (Green Card holder).   He has gotten into trouble and they tried to deport him, but the court has disagreed with the wording of the law.   

 

It's a matter of re-writing the law or facing further challenges in court.    There has to be a clear definition of what constitutes a crime for which one can be deported.    

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

What is possibly wrong with deporting illegal felons?  amazing

The case in question involved a legal Permanent Resident.

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

The case in question involved a legal Permanent Resident.

Fair point I had not read it thoroughly enough.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Anybody got the box scores for Trump versus SCOTUS ?

It's complicated.

For example:

• One travel ban reaching SCOTUS was denied a hearing because it expired.
• One travel ban was revised three times after the initial lower court denied it before a SCOTUS ruling was made in Trump's favor. Trump may not have thought that was really a win as the final ban version was very watered down.
• Trump's termination of DACA was denied by SCOTUS more on the failure to follow established government procedures for its termination. So in the short term a loss for Trump but who knows in the long term, especially if Congress must amend or repeal an existing law that would allow Trump to terminate DACA.

A score of how many Presidential Orders denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals might be a better measure. There I think the count might be 5 Against Trump and 2 for Trump (1 from Hawaii? Another won by Trump in one Circuit but lost in a different Circuit - hence onward to SCOTUS consolidated as a single case).

[Sir Dude]

Looks like the liberal fascists win again in La La Land. Foreign criminals should be deported, no questions asked, as they bring nothing to the new country they commit their crimes in and most countries have their hands full dealing with their indigenous perps...no need for extra problems. It is a privilege to be accepted into a foreign culture and build your life there. Sorry, but they got it wrong imo on this one, because when you commit crime you forgo your rights as an immigrant. The West will end up as a disfunctional modern dystopia with no common identity/values in 20 years due to it being politically/socially paralyzed and over-run with useless entitled people...the writing is already on the wall.

[rosst]

11 hours ago, Credo said:

 

Deportation is a legal process.   First the person needs to be eligible for deportation, including showing that there is no compelling reason for not deporting, there is also a series of hearings before there is an order for deportation.   The country where they are being deported to also has to agree to accept them (some countries simply won't).

 

In this situation, the law that the Supreme Court was looking at was considered to be to vague to be used as the grounds for deportation.   That is all that Court looked at.   I doubt they care one way or the other if he is deported, but they do care that it is done legally and the applicable laws are clear.   

 

 

Absolutely, and here is where Congress must decide on what they believe is grounds for deporting felons and making clear laws about it, Trump called for it, let us see if they agree. 

Personally I can't understand any country that would not cheerfully deport these offenders