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 ...
Thanks for the reminder. I was going to go looking - these things aren't hard to find - but thanks also for the link.
This is a nice try by Reuters to couch something that was not really an immigration decision into one that was. I read the opinion and it made no statement about whether the individual could be deported or not. It was deciding whether the notice required by statute had been given. It was a statutory interpretation case with Gorsuch taking a textualist approach.
This does appear to be a very technical issue.
The illegal immigrant claims that he lived continuously in the USA for more than 10 years.
That fact, if true, would have given him additional rights under the law to remain in the USA.
However, the law also states that his continuous residence ended when he received his notice to appear in court.
In fact, he did receive the notice BEFORE ten years had passed.
He agreed that was true, but, since certain information was not included in his notice to appear, he argued that 10 years had passed when he finally received the information that should have been included in his notice to appear.
I do not have time to read the Supreme Court opinion right now.
However, at first glance, this does NOT look like a classic Conservatives v. Neo-Marxist case.
Quite. Fits nicely with “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Law requiring courts to concisely state the logistics of the proceedings in a single written communication (vs multiple separate letters, unclear as to whether all have been delivered & received) is plainly appropriate and Constitutional.
Otherwise you get absurdities as posted in #17 above.
Because nobody is going to riot or burn down cities depending on how this case gets decided, so the Supreme Court found enough courage to look at it.
So “the accused” extends to all non-citizens, particularly those that invaded illegally? If we were so bound, then everyone outside the USA who was attacked by the USA or who attacked the USA in any war that the USA has ever prosecuted is due such niceties. No; with all due respect, I do not believe that’s the part of the Constitution that applies here.
Typical excuses I have heard in my 30 years as a public official:
1) the notice was placed in the local paper per state law.
Response: I don’t get the newspaper.
2) the notice was placed on our city website.
Response: I don’t have the internet.
3) City crews hung the notices on your front door.
Response: I don’t use my front door.
4) City crews put the notice on your car under the driver side wiper blade.
Response: I don’t drive.
I don’t claim to be a freeper, I am an American only and one who has taken the oath. The reason you’re dumb is because one person explained this too you very adroitly and you then double down on your ignorance. That’s really dumb. And one who engages in that kind of behavior is really dumb. Your best course of action is to admit it, and own your ignorance and stupidity. Once you do that then maybe you can start fixing it and learn to critically think. Dummy.
It seems like quite an obscure matter that is unlikely to affect anyone beyond this one fellow.
I wonder why SCOTUS thought this was worth their time at all?
Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined
A quick skim of the opinion indicates it was the result of a stupidly worded law.
The base case is exactly about whether the defendant is here legally or illegally. Were you accused of being an illegal alien, I’m sure you’d demand your day in court, and have a problem with someone saying “Olog-hai is an illegal alien, let’s throw him out without trial.”
Careful what precedent you set. Democrats might realize they can deport Republicans by just declaring them illegal immigrants.
Hence the importance of a secure border: stop people from getting in far enough and long enough that their legality becomes unclear.
If you allow lazy bureaucrats to do or not do their jobs as the whim takes them, it won’t just be immigrants that get shafted.
It will be farmers getting screwed over by the EPA or business owners getting reamed by BOLI or gun makers being jailed by ATF.
Due process is due process.
A civil court subpoena includes a complaint that outlines in detail the factual basis for the claim against you and the requested relief as well as a summons to respond by a date certain including the assignment of a judge and court and telling you you have a right to an attorney to represent you.
Any lawyer can follow the rules of civil process, but this agency apparently could not. It's due process and if you can violate due process for anyone you can deny it for everyone.
Well said.
That error with “precedent” happened once before in our history. We got a very bloody internecine civil war as a result.
the logic: Govt gives several documents to the immigrant regarding their deportation.
The Court: govt required to give “A” notice, interpreted as a signal piece of paper.
“A” notice does not mean a single piece of paper. it can be a rock thrown at your head.
God help us
Moving the goalposts to a different state is surely a sign of cognitive dissonance.
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.