Who's going to tell Trump ;)
The Trump administration loses an immigration case — with Gorsuch as the deciding vote
By Jennifer Rubin April 17 at 1:30 PM
To an inappropriate degree, both advocates and opponents of President Trump’s immigration approach looked to Sessions v. Dimaya to get a read on the Supreme Court’s reaction to the administration’s policies. The administration lost this one, with the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, concurring with the four liberal justices as the fifth vote against the administration. But the Supreme Court does not simply propound on policy questions; it decides cases based on specific facts and applicable laws (including the Constitution). It is therefore important to see what the court actually decided.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, set out the basic facts: “A native of the Philippines, [James] Dimaya has resided lawfully in the United States since 1992. But he has not always acted lawfully during that time. Twice, Dimaya was convicted of first degree burglary under California law. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§459, 460(a). Following his second offense, the Government initiated a removal proceeding against him. Both an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals held that California first-degree burglary is a ‘crime of violence'” and therefore pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act could be deported. In particular, the court looked at a catch-all clause, 18 U.S.C. §16(b), that says “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” constitutes a crime of violence.
Under what is called the “void for vagueness” doctrine, a criminal or other statute that enacts punishment (including deportation) cannot be an open-ended mandate for the government to catch anyone it pleases. As a matter of due process under the Fifth Amendment, potential criminal defendants need to know what conduct is covered and what is not. There is no point to written statutes if they can essentially say “and whatever else the government sees fit.”
more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/04/17/the-trump-administration-loses-an-immigration-case-with-gorsuch-as-the-deciding-vote/?utm_term=.9131842283dc
DO SOMETHING!
| 