SCOTUS Nixes Part of Law Requiring Deportation of Some Immigrants Convicted of Crimes
Source: CNN
(CNN) The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.
As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants.
Only eight justices heard the case last term after Scalia's death, and in late June, the court announced it would re-hear arguments this term, presumably so that Gorsuch could break some kind of a tie.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/supreme-court-federal-law-deportation-immigrants/index.html
hlthe2b
(102,509 posts)sigh...
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,727 posts)You beat me to it.
Retweeted by TheNewNormalHat: https://twitter.com/Popehat
Obviously the Supreme Court is political, but often people talk about it as purely political, with judges simply reflecting their own policy preferences or those of their nominators, which overstates the case.
Link to tweet
And there it is: Gorsuch casts his first vote with the liberals in a 54 decision, following Scalia's footsteps in striking down an unconstitutionally vague provision of a deportation statute. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf
Link to tweet
For those keeping score at home, Alito has never cast the fifth vote with the liberals a 54 opinion. I expect Gorsuch will do so at least once more this term, in Carpenter.
Link to tweet
Sessions v. Dimaya
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)didn't he almost take back Gorusch's nomination until he was told that SCOTUS judges can't be required to make loyalty oaths to the president?
mountain grammy
(26,666 posts)smb
(3,478 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,578 posts)...it doesn't exactly leave me feeling sanguine about the future of immigration law, but most especially, the future of SCOTUS.