SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DIMAYAhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdfThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) virtually guarantees that any alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” after entering the United States will be deported... The residual clause, the provision at issue here, defines a“crime of violence” as “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.” ...[The residual clause] was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness” under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Relying on Johnson, the Ninth Circuit held that §16(b), as incorporated into the INA, was also unconstitutionally vague.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
Two problems:
1) the decision is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not protect aliens, only U.S. citizens.
2) The Supreme Court does NOT MAKE NATIONAL LAW. The Constitution empowers ONLY CONGRESS to legislate. The constitutional and legitimate scope of SCOTUS decisions reach only to the PARTIES of the case.
Thus Trump is not bound by this decision regarding James Dimaya because it is an unconstitutional decision and is certainly not bound from continuing efforts to deport aliens under The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).