Latest
Kenyan Community in Qatar Launches Doha Morans Rugby Football ClubFrom Kenya to America: How Ng’endo Mukii Challenges Beauty Standards Through AnimationKalonzo Compares Raila to Moses, Urges Opposition to Complete His MissionNatembeya Backs University Plan as Ruto Pushes for KSh1 Billion HospitalKenyan Youth and Diaspora Set to Join Pan-African Gatherings in EthiopiaNairobi Police Pursue Suspect Who Allegedly Killed Girlfriend, Sent Video to FamilyTrendingKenyan National Charged in Nebraska for Alleged Student Aid FraudTrendingDeath Announcement: Danson Kungu Njuguna of Lowell, MassachusettsTrendingUS Judge Orders Trump Administration to Open Registration of 2027 Green Card Lottery by November 1stTrendingUSCIS Ends 540-Day Automatic EAD Extension, Impacting ImmigrantsTrendingU.S. Citizens Wrongfully Detained by ICE Could Get $500,000 Under New BillTrendingKenya Faces Rising Ebola Cases as Outbreak Expands
AdvertisementTop banner · 970×90 / 728×90
Immigration

US Supreme Court Strikes Down as Vague part of Immigration Law Regarding Deportations

US Supreme Court Strikes Down as Vague part of Immigration Law Regarding Deportations

(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.

AdvertisementIn-article ad

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the 20015 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.

Comments

Comments are reviewed before they appear. Please keep it respectful.

No comments yet — be the first.

AdvertisementMore stories (Google matched content)

More from Immigration