Part of immigration law too vague
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a provision in federal law requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of a “crime of violence.” That part of the immigration law is too vague to be enforced, justices ruled. The provision affects lawful permanent residents.
“This will only apply to a fraction of immigrants,” says Angela J. Ferguson, a Kansas City area immigration attorney. “Most non-citizens convicted of an aggravated felony will be deported.”
The court was closely divided over whether the definition of “crimes of violence” in the law is unconstitutionally vague. The majority’s 5-4 opinion decided, though, that the law passed by Congress failed to define what qualifies as a violent crime.
“The court’s ruling boils down to clarity and fairness,” Ferguson says.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, nominated by President Trump last year to the high court, wrote in a concurring opinion, “Vague laws invite arbitrary power.”
After the ruling, Tyler Q. Houlton, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman issued a statement. It asserted that the ruling significantly undermines efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and burglary.
“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,” Houlton stated.
But Ferguson says the government still has the power to deport immigrants convicted of a crime.
She says, “The Supreme Court’s decision is just that the definition of ‘crime of violence’ has to be specific, not vague, so that a judge cannot claim that any type of crime that could possibly result in harm is defined as a crime of violence.”
The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498 concerns James Garcia Dimaya. A native of the Philippines, Dimaya came to the U.S. at age 13 in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident.
In 2007 and 2009, he was convicted of first-degree residential burglary, which resulted in two years’ imprisonment.
In 2010, the Obama administration brought removal proceedings against Dimaya, theorizing that he’d committed an aggravated felony, which immigration law defined to include any offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. An immigration judge ruled that Dimaya was removable because of his two state convictions.
His lawyers appealed the removal, arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that Dimaya hadn’t received fair notice that his crimes would result in deportation.
In light of the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday, 2Mas2KC asked Ferguson about Dimaya’s lawful status.
Not having reviewed his case completely, Ferguson offered an educated guess that his case would be remanded back to immigration court for a decision consistent with the SCOTUS opinion.
“If the government cannot deport him for this crime, then he should be restored to his status prior to the removal proceedings, and that was lawful permanent resident,” she said.
It’s uncertain how many Kansas City area immigrants Tuesday’s SCOTUS ruling could affect. Several news outlets reported on Tuesday, however, that immigrant advocates estimate it could save thousands of people nationwide from being deported.
“It’s important for anyone charged with a crime to consult with a criminal attorney and work with a competent immigration attorney to obtain the best results for remaining in the U.S. and retaining eligibility for future citizenship.”
Editor’s Note: Read the Supreme Court opinion online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17.The case is Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498.
