Gorsuch Sides with Liberals--Strikes Down Immigrant Deportation Law

[InTheLight]

WASHINGTON, April 17 - 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.

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

The decision, the first in which Gorsuch sided with the four Democrat-appointed justices, could complicate the administration's drive to expel 'criminal aliens.'

 

[Baptist Believer]

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

Interesting.

I'll find some time this week to read the decision. I'm interested to know how Gorsuch thinks.

 

[rsr]

His opinion is actually a conservative one. The federal statute required deportation hearings for felons convicted of "crimes of violence." Although it lists several such crimes, it does not list burglary, which is what the defendant was convicted of. Courts, Gorsuch wrote, should not be required (or allowed) to decide which unnamed crimes qualify. (State statutes regularly define which crimes trigger additional punishments.)

" ... no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it. A government of laws and not of men can never tolerate that arbitrary power." Scalia probably would have concurred.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf

 

[Yeshua1]

His opinion is actually a conservative one. The federal statute required deportation hearings for felons convicted of "crimes of violence." Although it lists several such crimes, it does not list burglary, which is what the defendant was convicted of. Courts, Gorsuch wrote, should not be required (or allowed) to decide which unnamed crimes qualify. (State statutes regularly define which crimes trigger additional punishments.)

" ... no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it. A government of laws and not of men can never tolerate that arbitrary power." Scalia probably would have concurred.

IF the Justice dept resubmitted this back to the Court with proper language, would be upheld.

 

[rsr]

No, Congress would have to eliminate the ambiguity by fixing the law.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, Congress would have to eliminate the ambiguity by fixing the law.

But still can get passed.

 

[777]

Well, it's what Gorsuch himself said - vague laws invite arbitrary power. This wasn't some big pro-open borders ruling, the guy was a legal permanent American resident and the law was cloudy. Scalia would have ruled the same way here.

 

[carpro]

Hardly the end of the world.

Looks like ICE was playing fast and loose with the definition of "violent crime". Tighten it up and continue to do your job, fellas.

 

[carpro]

Plus it is instructive that Gorsuch voted with them, but did not concur with the reasoning of the left wing of the court. He wrote his own.