Treasonous SCOTUS Sides With Illegal Alien in Dispute Over Deportation Process

Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Politics
3 comments | Share | Flag

"Niz-Chavez was served with two government documents that together established the time and date of his deportation hearing.

But the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) mandates that the government must serve “a notice to appear” on individuals it wishes to remove from the country.

Gorsuch’s opinion centers on the indefinite article “a” in the noun phrase “a notice to appear.” The use of “a” implies a single document containing all of the relevant information, the court held.

“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that,” Gorsuch wrote.

“But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.”

If people “must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.”

In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote that Niz-Chavez “received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing.”

Despite this, the majority interpreted “a notice to appear” in a way that “spawns a litany of absurdities” that “will impose substantial costs and burdens on the immigration system.”"

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    As a thought exercise-

    Of course certain legal rights should apply even to those not legally present, objectively, what should such rights be?
    Humane treatment, sufficient food and water, protection from wind and weather, recognition of their property, rapid determination of status and deportation, safe means of carriage out. That would be about it.

    What I would not consider a right is that legal notice must be in a specific form-
    the ..would mean only that document,
    a ..would mean any suitable document.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    If IIRIRA says the 10-year clock stops ticking once immigrants receive "a notice to appear", to my mind this would be when all the documents that constitute a notice to appear are received.

    I do not agree with Justice Kavanaugh's reasoning that references sent after an interview are part of "a job application". I think candidates fill out the "the application", then have an interview, and if the candidates sends references in a later step.

    Despite this, I still agree with Kavanaugh's conclusion. I think if there's any doubt, all things that could possibly be seen as part of the notice to appear must be received before the clock can stop ticking, but I don't think the clock should keep going unless the noice comes on one form.

    I see what Justice Gorsuch is saying, though, about turning it around and saying if the govt required people to submit "a document" for something to happen, would the law give them the latitude to submit it piecemeal has the government was seeking to do? I actually think it should. I don't think a law shouldn't be binding on the government b/c some form came piecemeal, and I also don't think the government should have to send one single form because of the use of the indefinite article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo