U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Filipino/American fighting deportation

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ruled Tuesday (April 17) in favor of a Filipino immigrant threatened with deportation.

The ruling in Sessions v. Dimaya is another setback for Donald Trump's immigration policies. It  affects certain immigrants who are convicted of crimes, especially important as the Trump administration steps up deportations of immigrants who are convicted of small, nonviolent crimes.

The court's 5-4 decision concerns a catchall provision of immigration law that defines what makes a crime violent. Conviction for a crime of violence makes deportation "a virtual certainty" for an immigrant, no matter how long he has lived in the United States, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion for the court. 

JAMES GARCIA DIMAYA

The high court was deadlocked last year on the case of James Garcia Dimaya, a permanent U.S. resident who pleaded no contest to residential burglary charges about ten years ago. Since then, Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the court and as expected, he broke the deadlock vote, but not in the way Homeland Security anticipated. Gorsuch joined liberal justices to overturn the DHS interpretation of an immigration policy.

Tuesday's decision involves James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. 

Dimaya was convicted in the burglaries of a garage in 2007 and an empty house in 2009. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to two years in prison but spent five more years in prison until he was released on bond in March in 2016. The government then began deportation proceedings.

Dimaya challenged the deportation order. His lawyers argued that no one had been injured in the burglaries.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court last year but ended in a 4-4 tie because Gorsuch had not been seated in the court yet. It was reheard with hope that Gorsuch would break the tie. He did that, but not in the way the DHS had hoped.

"Today’s ruling significantly undermines DHS’s efforts to remove aliens convicted of certain violent crimes, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and burglary, from the United States," reads a statement by DHS Press Secretary Tyler Q. Houlton, "By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us more vulnerable as a result."

Justice Kagan said ambiguity surrounding the crimes of violence provision created confusion in lower courts. “Does car burglary qualify as a violent felony?” Kagan wrote. “Some courts say yes, another says no.” Kagan mentioned other examples including evading arrest and trespassing in which courts have also been divided.

Although Gorsuch voted with the liberal justices, he did not join all of Kagan's opinion. He agreed with her that the law could not be left in place. 

Gorsuch wrote that "no one should be surprised that the Constitution looks unkindly on any law so vague that reasonable people cannot understand its terms and judges do not know where to begin in applying it."

Although it is uncertain how many cases Tuesday's ruling might affect, it won't be a whole lot. “It’s certainly not a tidal wave,” said Kathy Brady, a senior staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Dimaya’s attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, said the decision strikes down a law that has over decades led to the deportation of thousands of immigrants. “The Supreme Court delivered a resounding message today: You can’t banish a person from his home and family without clear lines, announced up front,” Rosenkranz said.

________________________________________________________________________________