Supreme court hears case for deporting immigrant felons

Daily News Article   —   Posted on October 3, 2017

(by Andrew Chung, Reuters) WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday expressed skepticism toward part of an immigration law requiring the deportation of immigrants who commit violent felonies because of uncertainty over which crimes fit the bill and which do not.

The justices heard arguments in the government’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that language in the Immigration and Nationality Act calling for deportation of legal immigrants convicted of a “crime of violence” was so vague that it violated their rights to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution.

The case involves a Filipino legal immigrant named James Garcia Dimaya who federal authorities ordered deported after he was convicted in two California home burglaries, though neither crime involved violence.

…The ruling in the case could help clarify the crimes for which non-citizen immigrants may be expelled, affecting the Trump administration’s policy of stepping up the removal those with criminal records. …

Monday’s arguments marked the second time the court has tried to tackle the case. It heard arguments in January when the nine-seat court was one justice short [following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia], then decided in June to have the case re-argued this term after Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch [was confirmed]. …..

Dimaya came to the United States from the Philippines as a legal permanent resident in 1992 at age 13. He lived with his family in the San Francisco Bay area, and had worked in several retail store jobs, including as a manager.

He was convicted in residential burglaries in 2007 and 2009 in crimes in which no violence was used and no one was injured. For each conviction he was sentenced to two years in prison.

In 2010, the Obama administration began a process to deport Dimaya. The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest U.S. administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, refused to cancel his expulsion because the law involved defines 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 liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that the definition as applied to non-citizen immigrants was unconstitutionally vague and can lead to arbitrary enforcement of the law. The appeals court relied on a decision that same year by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case, which found that a similar provision in a federal criminal sentencing law was overly broad.

The 7th Circuit Court in Chicago handed down a similar ruling to the 9th Circuit, while the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled in favor of the government.

The split prompted the high court to decide the case of Lynch vs. Dimaya. By the time the decision is handed down, the case will probably be relabeled Sessions vs. Dimaya, to reflect expected change of attorney general. [President Obama’s Attorney General was Loretta Lynch; President Trump’s Attorney General is Jeff Sessions.]

The case was argued on Monday, the first day of the court’s new term. A ruling is due by the end of June.

From Reuters .com. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission from Thomson Reuters.


On the Supreme Court from


On the Role of Judges:
Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call ‘em as they see ‘em, according to the facts and law-without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is “favored,” without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law. (from the American Bar Asociation)

“The role of a judge is to be a neutral interpreter of already established law, not legislator of new law or social policy.  A judge can have his or her own opinions, even strong ones, and still read the law neutrally.  Fundamentally, judges are expected to not bring their personal politics and philosophies to the bench. Judges are expected to read the law in its clear intent and apply it without regard to result. Changing the law should be left to the people and their legislators.”  Sean Rushton, Committee for Justice Executive Director, from the

“One of the big confusions in the…Senate fight over the confirmation of judicial nominees is that this is an issue about ‘liberal’ judges versus ‘conservative’ judges.  The vastly more important issue is whether people who go into court should expect their cases to be decided on the basis of the law or on the basis of the particular judge’s own philosophy…Liberals have rooted for judicial activism because this activism has favored liberal causes and liberal views on such issues as abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, and racial quotas.  But activism can be used by any judge for any purpose.” Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution

NOTE: …It is crucial…to have a president who understands the judiciary’s proper role. As Ronald Reagan once noted, “[The Founders] knew that the courts, like the Constitution itself, must not be liberal or conservative.” For Reagan and for the Founders, judges were to be selected based on their ability to put political preferences aside and interpret the Constitution and laws based on their original meaning.  Rather than scrutinizing judicial nominees based on their perceived political leanings, [every] president should appoint judges who apply the law regardless of their own policy preferences. (from “Misunderstanding the Role of Judges” by Deborah O’Malley)