Sessions v. Dimaya

Sessions v. Dimaya
Argued January 17, 2017
Reargued October 2, 2017
Decided April 17, 2018
Full case name Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, Petitioner v. James Garcia Dimaya
Docket nos. 15-1498
Citations 584 U.S. ___ (more)
2018 U.S. LEXIS 2497
Prior history Board of Immigration Appeals reversed sub nom. Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18045 (9th Cir. 2015); cert. granted sub. nom. Lynch v. Dimaya, 195 L. Ed. 2d 902, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4461 (2016).
Holding
18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies", is unconstitutionally vague. Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
Plurality Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch (as to Parts I, III, IV-B, and V)
Concurrence Gorsuch (in part and in the judgment)
Dissent Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent Thomas, joined by Kennedy and Alito (as to Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B).

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are very likely to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.[1][2][3][4]

Background

James Dimaya was a native of the Philippines who legally immigrated to the United States in 1992. He was convicted on two separate counts of residential burglary in 2007 and 2009. Due to these convictions, the United States government sought to deport Dimaya in 2010, asserting that these convictions were "aggravated felonies" under the Immigration and Nationality Act to support his deportation.[5] Specifically, the government argued that Dimaya's convictions fell within the "residual clause" of the definition of a violent crime, which included "any other offense that is a felony and 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."[6] A federal immigration judge ordered Dimaya deported, agreeing that the convictions constituted violent aggravated felonies. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the immigration judge's ruling on appeal.[7]

Dimaya's lawyers appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the Ninth Circuit was hearing this case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Johnson v. United States (2015) that a residual clause in the definition of a violent crime in the Armed Career Criminal Act, which stated "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another", was unconstitutionally vague and violated due process. The Ninth Circuit considered the Supreme Court's rationale in Johnson, and subsequently found that the residual clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act was also unconstitutionally vague, overturning the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision.[5]

Supreme Court

The United States Government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in June 2016, specifically requesting the court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision that the residual clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague.[8] In September, the Court granted certiorari, agreeing to hear the case.[9]

The case was first heard on January 17, 2017; the Court at that time only had eight members following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and prior to confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Justices were deadlocked 4 to 4 in their decision, and a new oral hearing was held on October 2, 2017, before the full nine-member court.[5]

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its ruling on April 17, 2018, upholding the Ninth Circuit's decision that the residual clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutionally vague. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority decision and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, and in part by Neil Gorsuch. Kagan referred to Scalia's majority opinion from Johnson to justify that the language of the residual clause was sufficiently vague.[3] Justice Gorsuch wrote an additional concurring opinion, reiterating the importance of the vagueness doctrine within Scalia's opinion from Johnson.[3]

Commentators widely discussed Justice Gorsuch's decisive vote joining the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court. Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump and began serving in April 2017, broke a 4–4 tie in favor of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court, ruling against the Trump administration's position in upholding the existing law.[10][11] Several news organizations noted that Gorsuch's vote mirrored Scalia's displeasure with vague laws or excessive government power.[12][7]

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Roberts argued that the language in the residual clauses of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Armed Career Criminal Act was significantly different and that the vagueness doctrine did not apply to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Thomas also wrote an additional dissenting opinion, joined in part by Kennedy and Alito.[3]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Stern, Mark Joseph. "Why Neil Gorsuch Sided With the Liberal Justices to Protect Immigrants From Deportation". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2018-04-17.
  2. ↑ "Opinion analysis: Crime-based removal provision is unconstitutionally vague - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. 17 April 2018. Retrieved 2018-04-17.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (17 April 2018). "Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Court's Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-17 – via NYTimes.com.
  4. ↑ Rubin, Jennifer (17 April 2018). "Opinion | The Trump administration loses an immigration case — with Gorsuch as the deciding vote". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-04-17.
  5. 1 2 3 Liptak, Adam (January 17, 2017). "When Can Immigrants Be Deported for Crimes? Justices Hear Sides". The New York Times. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
  6. ↑ Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2497 at *11 (2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 16).
  7. 1 2 de Vogue, Ariane; Kopan, Tal (April 17, 2018). "SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes". CNN. Retrieved April 18, 2018.
  8. ↑ Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  9. ↑ Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015); cert. granted sub nom. Lynch v. Dimaya, 195 L. Ed. 2d 902 (2016).
  10. ↑ "Gorsuch swings against Trump in deportation case". POLITICO. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
  11. ↑ "Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
  12. ↑ "Gorsuch Did Scalia Proud (If Not Trump)". The New Republic. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.