Connect with us


An unusual coalition when the Supreme Court rules on an immigrant

WASHINGTON (AP) – An unusual coalition of Supreme Court justices joined forces on Thursday to decide whether an immigrant should fight for deportation in a case that the court said changed the meaning of the shortest word, “a”.

The court ruled in favor of Guatemalan immigrant Agusto Niz-Chavez, who has been in the United States since 2005. Eight years later, he received a notice to appear at the deportation hearing, but this notice did not include the date or time. Two months later, a second notice instructed him on when and where to appear.

By announcing deportation hearings, the government may suspend the immigrants’ watch, hoping to show that they have been in the United States for at least 10 years. The 10-year mark under federal law makes it easier to be allowed to stay in the country.

The court ruled that immigration officials should include all relevant information in one notice.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion, wrote that they were doing this by criticizing the government’s “partial notification”.

Two other Conservative judges, Clarence Thomas and Amy Connie Barrett, were signed by three Liberal members of the court: Steven Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. The case was challenged in November under the Trump administration.

“Anyone who has applied for a passport, applied for social security benefits or applied for a license understands their kinship with government documents. Are you making a mistake or skipping the page? Come back: try again, sometimes imposing a fine for the inconvenience. “But it turns out that the federal government is disappointing some of its own people,” Gorsukh wrote.

1996 The immigration law stipulates “filing a notice” for people the government wants to deport, Gorsuch said.

“At first, the reddening seems to be a notice. One document that contains all the information an individual needs to know about their removal hearing. But the government says providing so much information in one go is too much. “It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information over time (as far as they are comfortable) through separate mail deliveries (as many as they want),” he wrote.

Gorsuch admitted that much seemed to depend on one word, but said it was the court’s job to make sure that the executive branch did not exceed the power given to it by Congress.

He said. “The phrase ‘submit a statement’ to request a single notice, not to comment on 2 or 20 documents.

Dissenting Justice Brett Cavanaugh, along with President Donald Trump-appointed Gorsuch և Barrett, called Gorsuch’s conclusion “rather confusing as a matter of statutory interpretation”.

Cavanaugh noted that Niz-Chavez had an adequate notice because he appeared at his hearing with a lawyer. “Niz-Chavez has been notified in writing of all charges required, including the timing of the hearing,” wrote Cavanaugh, who was joined by Chief Justice John von Roberts and Justice Minister Samuel Alito.

Receiving the first notification without a hearing date “gives the citizen more time to prepare a defense. “And a non-civilian has no prejudice against receiving notice in two documents other than in one, as in the case of Niz-Chavez, which is very clear,” Cavanaugh wrote.

This was not the first time Anthony Kennedy, now retired,’s two former lawyers, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School in a Maryland suburb, were on opposite sides of the aisle.

Last year, Gorsuch wrote a court ruling that federal law prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people in the workplace. Cavanaugh was a dissident.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *