The U.S. Supreme Court recently made it easier to deport immigrants. The ruling came after a case involving a man who had used a fake Social Security card to get a job as a janitor. He was eventually found guilty and fined $100 under state law in Nebraska. While the case was controversial, the lower courts ruled that the fine was enough to justify deportation because of moral turpitude.
In the case of Andre Martello Barton, a Jamaican man convicted of criminal impersonation was able to get a deportation order after the court upheld a lower court's decision. The decision was 5-4 in favor of the government, and dissenting justices sided with the immigrants. The man, Andre Martello Barton, had been living in the U.S. for 25 years before his deportation.
Although Dimaya's case is not a precedent, it provides a clear message that immigration officials cannot write mushy immigration standards without Congressional approval. Immigrants will be able to cite Dimaya's case when asking for additional constitutional protections and when defending themselves against a deportation order. And the Justice Department may use the ruling as a basis to enforce immigration laws.
The ruling may have wide implications for thousands of immigrants. Justice Stevens rejected the idea that this decision would "open the floodgates" to immigrants with criminal convictions. In other words, immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. may have a chance to fight their deportation case and get citizenship instead. Despite the potential implications of this ruling, immigration attorneys are continuing to educate criminal defense lawyers on the ramifications of the decision.
The ruling will also make it easier to deport immigrants. The court's majority ruled in favor of deportation. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined a liberal bloc in dissenting. This ruling also opens up an unrestricted loophole for immigration officials who may be tempted to misrepresent the truth in order to expedite their deportation cases.
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the ruling. The majority opinion stated that a lawyer's duty under the Sixth Amendment extends only to advising a defendant about immigration consequences. The decision also requires criminal defense attorneys to provide clients with informed legal advice regarding immigration consequences of guilty pleas. Even though deportation is the most severe punishment for non-citizen defendants, it remains one of the most important.
Under the new ruling, the attorney general can grant relief to an immigrant facing deportation if the immigration authorities deem the case is "disproportionate" to the crime. However, to get such relief, the defendant must show that their immigration attorney was constitutionally deficient and their bad advice had an extreme consequence. However, Padilla has stated that he would have fought the charges at trial. The possibility of an increased sentence if the case went to trial was high. Ultimately, Padilla still faced deportation no matter what he did.
The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial is a vital component of a defendant's rights. It makes it easier for the government to make deportation more efficient by recognizing that a defendant needs to interview alien witnesses. It also clarifies that the burden of proof lies with the defendant. And while this is an important decision for the Government, it still makes the law harder for immigrants
