 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
October 27, 2007 Jun
17, 2005 Feb
12, 2005 Dec
9, 2004 Nov
16, 2004
|
New Supreme Court Justices Review Immigration Case On Wednesday, March 22, 2006, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the first immigration case to come before the newly-constituted Roberts’ Court. The Court’s decision may determine the whether or not a prior order of removal can be reinstated for someone who re-enters after being deported. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have not previously ruled on immigration cases while being seated in the Supreme Court, so this case will give some idea of where they stand. The Court agreed to take the case so that it can address the following question: “Whether and under what circumstances INA § 241(a)(5) [which allows the Government to reinstate an old order removal without a hearing before an immigration court] applies to an alien who reentered the United States illegally before the effective date of IIRIRA, April 1, 1997. During the oral argument, the Justices’ questions concerned whether Congress intended the 1996 change in the law to apply to people who reentered the United States long before 1996. The Court also focused on the effect of the change to the reinstatement provision on eligibility for adjustment of status through his U.S. spouse. The alien’s attorney argued, the pre-IIRIRA reinstatement statute contained explicit language indicated that it applied to people who were deported before the statute was enacted. However, IIRIRA’s reinstatement provision did not include such language. Justice Scalia appeared to accept the government’s argument that for purposes of the retroactivity analysis, the relevant time is when the reinstatement occurred rather than when the person was originally deported or reentered. Justice Breyer’s questions indicated that the case likely would turn on the analysis set forth in another case wherein retroactivity of a statute is considered. The Court generally does not make a decision right away. The vote, decision and written opinion are expected some time this Spring. In any event, the decision and opinion of the Court will give us some idea of which way the Court will turn on immigrant rights. If the court determines that new laws apply to old situations, we are dealing with a court that is going to be tough on immigrants. If, however, the Court states that the new laws apply only to new situations, we are more likely to see a Court that will be moderate on immigrant rights issues. As the Court has been closely divided on such issues in the past, it will be important to know where the new Justices stand. March 23, 2006 Sanjay S. Mathur Attorney at Law Mathur Law Offices, P.C. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. Website designed and maintained by
