Posted on 04/29/2021 9:15:32 AM PDT by GIdget2004
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday bolstered the efforts of some long-term immigrants to avoid deportation in a ruling that faulted the federal government for improperly notifying a man who came to the United States illegally from Guatemala to appear for a removal hearing.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling that divided the court’s conservative bloc, overturned a lower court’s decision that had prevented Agusto Niz-Chavez from pursuing his request to cancel the attempted expulsion based on having lived in the United States for many years. Niz-Chavez lives in Michigan with his family after entering the United States illegally in 2005.
At issue in the case was whether federal immigration law requires authorities to include all relevant details for a notice to appear for a hearing in one document or can send the information across multiple documents.
“In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling.
Gorsuch was joined by the court’s three liberal justices as well as conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.
In a dissent, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, said the ruling was “perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Good thing we have a 6-3 “conservative” court.
This SCOTUS is a putrid libtard mess, rotting from within. They have become a meaningless appendage of the Dimmocommies.
So if you don’t know you’ve broken the law entering our country illegally then you’re free to go?
“Gorsuch was joined by the court’s three liberal justices as well as conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.”
Weird split. My assumption is that the gov’t didn’t do the paperwork correctly and failed to follow the wording of the law.
Gorsuch interprets a law as it is written, even if it is a rule he disagress with.
The law sides with illegality.
We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
Frightened out of their minds by visions of horse heads in their beds.
The Supreme Court of Communism and Corruption.
My question is whether this opens up new litigation on the grounds of improper notifications now.
Did you bother to even read the court’s opinion? Didn’t think so.
Justice Thomas is in the majority for the simple reason that the case turns on statutory interpretation, and the majority, for once, interpreted the law as written, and did not rewrite the law to support a political or philosophical agenda. This should be a seen as a victory for conservatism, even if the result is undesirable.
So....”At issue was whether federal immigration law requires authorities to include ‘all relevant details’ for a notice to appear for a hearing ‘in one document’ or can send the information across ‘multiple documents’.....
How did such an easily resolved trivial matter of an illegal ever find room to arrive and be heard by Supreme Court when the Pres. of the USA election issues didn’t????????
They made it look good, didn’t they. Even had Roberts in dissent so he wouldn’t look like the completely corrupt reptile that he actually is.
Establishment vs. Populists.
He is not supposed to do that. He is supposed to interpret it according to whether it is Constitutional or not.
Gorsuch interprets a law as it is written …
If Justice Thomas decided it was a bad ruling I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Sometimes cases involving illegal aliens could have some bearing on the rights of ordinary citizens.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion, and it sounds like that’s exactly what he is saying:
“In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling.
It’s still frustrating, and results in more illegals.
“He is supposed to interpret it according to whether it is Constitutional or not.”
True, but this case didn’t seem to have anything to do with the constitution. The issue seems to be:
“Whether federal immigration law requires authorities to include all relevant details ... in one document or can send the information across multiple documents.”
If the law says it has to be one document, it might be a badly written law but it doesn’t violate the constituion.
Correct. The law states how the bureaucracy shall operate in this case, it didn’t, he can’t be punished just because the bureaucracy screwed up.
Douglas Adams described such well:
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”
THAT is what SCOTUS just disallowed.
Yes, and they just handed us another excuse for an additional year of lockdowns because of all the diseases they are releasing into the country.
More people spend their time f’ing around all day on public ass-istance than working, but the regime needs more covid, TB and measles spreaders. I guess that’s their job-to spread disease and the regime pays them to do it.
Ignorant people shouldn’t follow ignorant reporters in the way they frame a decision.
Read the actual opinion, now the blowhard rendition of it.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf
This was a case about what the law SAYS not what we want it to do.
At issue was a “notice to appear” for immigration proceedings via a series of documents, instead of the required single comprehensive notice.
If the law is to mean anything it has to mean something. It can’t bend to outcomes simply because you think it should based on the subject matter.
Notice the voting lineup here. The liberals voted the way they did because of outcome, Gorsuch, Barrett and Thomas are strict constructionists and voted the way they did because of what the law says.
Judicial activism is wrong no matter what outcome you prefer. Too many of the moron class embrace it openly today.
It means that whomever wrote the deportation letter knew it would be thrown out on procedural grounds and the illegals would win. /spit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.