Supreme Court strikes down part of immigration law about deporting criminals

SHARE Supreme Court strikes down part of immigration law about deporting criminals
ap17156543614085.jpg

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes is too vague to be enforced. | AP file photo

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes is too vague to be enforced.

The court’s 5-4 decision concerns a provision of immigration law that defines a “crime of violence.” Conviction for a crime of violence subjects an immigrant to deportation and usually speeds up the process.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco previously struck down the provision as too vague, and on Monday the Supreme Court agreed. The appeals court based its ruling on a 2015 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similarly worded part of another federal law that imposes longer prison sentences on repeat criminals.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the 2015 decision “tells us how to resolve this case.”

The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump’s administration which, like President Barack Obama’s administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court. And it comes amid an ongoing focus on immigration by Trump.


RELATED

In Immigration Court, few criminals, far more minor offenders

Prominent appeals court judge rips colleagues, immigration courts, backs Chicago cabbie

Trump administration seeks to close immigration ‘loopholes’


The case the high court ruled in involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After he pleaded no contest to two charges of burglary in California, the government began deportation proceedings against him. The government argued among other things that he could be removed from the country because his convictions qualified as crimes of violence that allowed his removal under immigration law.

The case was initially argued in January of 2017 by a court that was short a member because the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat had not yet been filled. An eight member court didn’t decide the issue, presumably because the justices were deadlocked 4-4. After Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court, the justices heard the case re-argued. Gorsuch joined the court’s more liberal justices in finding the clause too vague.

The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.

The Latest
The high-stakes showdown — roughly a month ahead of the election — covered abortion, guns and crime; Pritzker’s handling of the pandemic, and the state’s financial ledgers. But the fast — and at times scattershot — pacing often left viewers without answers about where the candidates stood on those key issues.
Here’s how you can watch in person or from your couch, track a runner, plus tips on how to successfully maneuver around the city during the marathon Sunday.
The man, 18, was walking in the 4700 block of South Ashland Avenue about 9 p.m. Thursday when someone in a passing vehicle shot him, police said.
Tino Roane, 37, was shot about 12:40 a.m. Thursday during an argument in the 38100 block of North Loyola Avenue, the Lake County sheriff’s office said.