WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

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.

Link

Cue calling Gorsuch a "traitor."

Seems to be all too a regular pattern with Republican-appointed Justices. Why do they do this?

Democrat-appointed Justices NEVER, EVER side with the conservative ones, that's for damn sure.

Respect for precedent, I think.

“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.”

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Seems to be all too a regular pattern with Republican-appointed Justices. Why do they do this?

Democrat-appointed Justices NEVER, EVER side with the conservative ones, that's for damn sure.

Well, never ever may not be as seldom as you think.

Over half the cases decided in a recent term were unanimous.

The Supreme Court Still Knows How to Find a Consensus

The Congressional Critters write the laws not the administrative branch. Can someone post the vague law they ruled on?

In my industry, oil & gas, much of the laws appear intentionally vague so the regulators (aka administrative branch) can interpret as they see fit especially under previous administration. We had quite a bit of success in federal appeals courts on poorly written vague laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Respect for precedent, I think.

“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.”

I haven't read the opinion, but sometimes precedent and stare decises makes it hard for a principled jurist to make a decision other than the one he makes. As we all know, they are to apply the law, not make it (or bend it).

It is hard to criticize any judge for judicial conservatism, even the result isn't the one we like.

Sometimes we don’t agree with previous precedent but are stuck with it.

Here, this is a great example of a situation where Congress needs to step up and tighten the definition.

Yes, and you're just Johnny on the spot, jhe. First post, you're telling everyone here what they think and how they will react. Next post from you, you're consoling all the poor dolts by telling them that life isn't fair.

Will you find yet a third way to talk down to the members of this forum?

quote:

Why do they do this?

the possibility of such votes against my own opinion, may well be based on actual interpretation of law requiring more specific definition of terms....if it IS such a crime requiring a specific legal remedy, why is is possible to make argument convincing to the opposing side?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Seems to be all too a regular pattern with Republican-appointed Justices. Why do they do this?...

Maybe because being popular in the media is more important than upholding correct principles.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Democrat-appointed Justices NEVER, EVER side with the conservative ones, that's for damn sure.

That's provably false. Furthermore: Sometimes it happens that conservative lawmakers or executives are wrong. I know: Shocking.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Seems to be all too a regular pattern with Republican-appointed Justices. Why do they do this?...

Maybe because being popular in the media is more important than upholding correct principles.

Have either of you read the majority or minority opinion on this case?

If not, let’s not besmirch his name without the facts.

So the Supreme Court with Scalia on the bench told the WH that the law was too vague, a district court told them the same thing a year later and they are surprised when a new court tells them the same thing for the 3rd time?

Do I have that right?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yes, and you're just Johnny on the spot, jhe. First post, you're telling everyone here what they think and how they will react. Next post from you, you're consoling all the poor dolts by telling them that life isn't fair.

Will you find yet a third way to talk down to the members of this forum?

The first was snarky, no doubt.

The second was not, and is just trying to explain why some decisions which a judge makes may be compelled by acting as a judge properly should, even if it generates a ruling that he, or members of his political group do not like. That isn't talking down to anyone. Sometimes people don't understand the principles that judges should apply when making decisions. If trying to pass on some knowledge is "talking down" then I guess I am guilty. I don't see it that way.

I wasn't consoling, and you are reading into my post what your general dislike of my tone leads you to see. You scolded someone just the other day for putting words into your mouth and trying to tell you what you were thinking. Why do it to me?

Oh, brother.

I'm trying to run a forum.

"Too vague" huh? Unsurprising coming from a group that actually believe "shall not be infringed" is so interpretive.

How about any person in the USA who is not legally allowed to be here, he/she/it get deported?

Is that specific enough for you "smarter, wiser than thou" pricks? What does it matter, just about half the bench vote party line anyways. Imagine if Heller was a case about practicing free speech in his own home and the decision was 5-4. Disgusting.

The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years but it took less than 250 years for lawyers and politicians to pull a 180.

quote:

Originally posted by StayFrosty:
. . .How about any person in the USA who is not legally allowed to be here, he/she/it get deported? . . .

Couple of points:

-- As I read it, the info says that the Filipino came to the USA legally, ie: he's a legal immigrant, not an illegal. So the case wasn't about tossing out an illegal.

-- The crimes involved were burglaries. Is it not true that burglary is generally NOT thought of as violent? To be charged with burglary, doesn't the crime have to involve stealthy entry into an unoccupied place? If there's violence/confrontation involved, wouldn't the crime be robbery, not burglary?

-- If the Congress and/or state legislature(s) did a bad job of defining the terms in the law, isn't it the Congress and/or state legislature(s) fault that the law doesn't deliver the desired result? Do you think a lawyer, any lawyer who is handed the case, isn't going to point that out in open court? Why are we blaming the court -- that's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?

-- If/when that badly written law gets applied to me, I want it to be crystal clear, NOT vague and ambiguous. For example, I damned sure don't want an over-zealous prosecutor defining speeding on the freeway (people do get maimed and even die because of that, don't they?) as a "violent crime" just because the badly written law lets the prosecutor have that much wiggle room. Yeah, maybe that's not a great example, but you get where I'm coming from -- it needs to be done/written right. And it it's not right, my lawyer needs to act on that, and the judge needs to respond impartially if my lawyer is right, no matter how disgusting a person I may otherwise be.

-- And, talk about not written right! Why is it necessary that the crime be violent in nature to get the criminal deported? The guy's a damned criminal, a thief, a burglar with convictions on his record. Deport him already on that basis alone. Come on legislature, write a clear law that will stand judicial scrutiny and that will get a non-citizen criminal the hell out of this country pronto.

They need to "un-vague" the law and be laser beam specific, then resubmit to the SCOTUS. What is their problem? List the crimes that will apply a speedy exit from our country. "Vague" is all too common in laws. 2 burglaries? Let me see here...yep, it is on the list, number 44. SCOTUS is just doing their job.

How about we be a little more specific in the next re-write of this law. We've had since '15 to do it.