And Neil Gorsuch - deliver blow to Trump's deportation law

And Neil Gorsuch - deliver blow to Trump's deportation law

The decision is a loss for Trump's administration which, like President Barack Obama's administration before it, had defended the provision at issue before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with the 9th circuit. It repeatedly blocked Trump's controversial travel ban past year, and in January blocked the administration from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program, which protects from deportation all illegal immigrants who arrived as children.

The court's ruling followed a similar one back in 2015, when Justice Scalia declared a key section of criminal law targeting armed violence unconstitutionally vague.

This, the late Justice Scalia wrote, meant that it contravened the well-established "void for vagueness" doctrine, which strikes down insufficiently clear laws.

She was joined by the court's consistent liberals - Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor - as well as Gorsuch, who has just celebrated his first anniversary on the court after being nominated by Trump.

In 2015, Scalia wrote the court's decision in Johnson v.

More news: Twitter goes down for users in India, shows technical error
More news: Bodies of Indian family missing in USA found
More news: Fidelity MSCI Utilities ETF (FUTY) Rises 0.71% for April 15

The case involved James Garcia Dimaya, a lawful immigrant to the United States from the Philippines.

But if that never-confirmed split was along ideological lines - with conservative justices backing the government and liberals siding with the immigrant facing mandatory removal - Gorsuch's addition turned out to be counterproductive.

President Donald Trump reacted to the ruling on Twitter on Tuesday evening, writing, "Today's Court decision means that Congress must close loopholes that block the removal of risky criminal aliens, including aggravated felons". It initially heard arguments in January 2017 when the nine-seat court was one justice short, but decided in June after Gorsuch brought the court to full strength to have the case re-argued. "In my judgment, the Constitution demands more". "By preventing the federal government from removing known criminal aliens, it allows our nation to be a safe haven for criminals and makes us vulnerable as a result", said DHS press secretary Tyler Q. Houlton. The Department of Homeland Security determined that his crimes could be considered crimes of violence and thus were aggravated felonies that made him eligible for deportation. He lived in the San Francisco Bay area.

In the federal criminal code, a "crime of violence" includes offenses in which force either was used or carried a "substantial risk" that it would be used. Roberts said the ruling will have significant ramifications because the same "crime of violence" definition is used in numerous other laws, including using or carrying firearms during a violent crime, and could call into question convictions under them.

How do critics and supporters view the Supreme Court justice's first year? They announced instead they would rehear the case in early October, making clear to all that Gorsuch would cast the deciding vote.

Immigration judges would have allowed Dimaya to be deported, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down the provision as unconstitutionally vague.

Related Articles