Court rejects a lawsuit from states demanding that Biden administration boost deportations
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last Friday rejected a Republican-led challenge to a Biden administration policy that prioritizes the deportation of immigrants who are deemed to pose the greatest risk to public safety or were picked up at the border.
The justices voted 8-1 to allow the long-blocked policy to take effect, recognizing there is not enough money or manpower to deport all 11 million or so people who are in the United States illegally.
The case was one of two immigration cases decided last Friday, the other upholding a section of federal law used to prosecute people who encourage illegal immigration.
In the deportation case, Louisiana and Texas had argued that federal immigration law requires authorities to detain and expel those in the U.S. illegally even if they pose little or no risk.
But the court held that the states lacked the legal standing, or right to sue, in the first place.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion for the court that the executive branch has no choice but to prioritize enforcement efforts.
"That is because the Executive Branch invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public welfare needs of the American people," Kavanaugh wrote.
At the center of the case is a September 2021 directive from the Department of Homeland Security that paused deportations unless individuals had committed acts of terrorism, espionage or "egregious threats to public safety." The guidance, issued after Joe Biden became president, updated a Trump-era policy to remove people who were in the country illegally, regardless of criminal history or community ties.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas applauded Friday's decision, saying it would allow immigration officers "to focus limited resources and enforcement actions on those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety and border security."
The case displayed a frequently used litigation strategy by Republican attorneys general and other officials that has succeeded in slowing Biden administration initiatives by going to Republican-friendly courts.
Texas and Louisiana claimed in their lawsuit that they would face added costs of having to detain people the federal government might allow to remain free inside the United States, despite their criminal records.
Last year, a federal judge in Texas ordered a nationwide halt to the guidance and a federal appellate panel in New Orleans declined to step in.
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati had earlier overturned a district judge's order that put the policy on hold in a lawsuit filed by Arizona, Ohio and Montana.
But 11 months ago, when the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, the justices voted 5-4 to keep the policy on hold. At the same time, the court agreed to hear the case, which was argued in December.
In last Friday's decision, Kavanaugh's opinion spoke for just five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the outcome for other reasons.
Justice Samuel Alito filed a solo dissent, writing that the decision improperly favors the president over Congress. "And it renders states already laboring under the effects of massive illegal immigration even more helpless," Alito wrote.
Justices uphold federal law used to prosecute people who encourage illegal immigration
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last Friday upheld a section of federal law used to prosecute people who encourage illegal immigration, ruling against a California man who offered adult adoptions he falsely claimed would lead to U.S. citizenship.
The court by a 7-2 vote rejected arguments that the law is too broad and violates the Constitution.
The case involves a section of federal immigration law that says a person who "encourages or induces" a non-citizen to come to or remain in the United States illegally can be punished by up to five years in prison. That's increased to 10 years if the person doing the encouraging is doing so for personal financial gain.
Writing for a majority of her colleagues Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that while a lower court had found the section of the law was unconstitutionally overbroad, "That was an error." Two of the court's three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.
The case in front of the court involved Helaman Hansen, who lived in Elk Grove, California, near Sacramento. The federal government says that from 2012 to 2016, Hansen deceived hundreds of non-citizens into believing that he could guarantee them a path to citizenship through adult adoption.
Based on Hansen's promises, officials say, people either came to or stayed in the United States in violation of the law, even though Hansen knew that the adult adoptions he was arranging would not lead to citizenship. The government says that at least 471 people paid him between $550 and $10,000 each and that in total he collected more than $1.8 million.
Hansen was ultimately convicted of encouragement charges as well as fraud charges. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison on the encouragement charges and 20 years on the fraud charges. But a federal appeals court ruled that the law on encouragement is overbroad and violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and overturned just those convictions.
In her opinion, Barrett wrote that "Hansen asks us to throw out too much of the good based on a speculative shot at the bad." She said: "This is not the stuff of overbreadth."
The case is United States v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179.
Conviction of a man for his role on an international hit team upheld
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last Friday upheld the conviction of a man serving a life sentence for his role on an international "kill team" in a case about what happens when one person's confession might also implicate someone else on trial.
Adam Samia's lawyers had asked the court for a new trial in the killing of a real estate broker in the Philippines because they said he was convicted on the basis of a confession from another man with whom he was on trial.
The confession unfairly implicated Samia as the trigger man, in violation of his constitutional rights, Samia's lawyers said. The co-defendant did not testify in his own defense so there was no opportunity for Samia's trial lawyers to question the man.
But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, said prosecutors had done enough to protect Samia's rights. The confession was altered to substitute "someone" or "the other person" every time Samia's name was mentioned. The jury also was told not to consider the confession in assessing Samia's guilt.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his majority opinion that there was no violation of the constitutional provision that gives a defendant the right to confront his accuser.
Thomas said Samia did not deserve a new trial because the confession "did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction."
The court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority decision "undermines a vital constitutional protection for the accused."
Samia was tried with two other men who carried out the attack on the orders of Paul LeRoux, a South African who led an international crime organization and cooperated with federal authorities after his arrest in 2012.
LeRoux ordered the killing of the broker, Catherine Lee, because he believed Lee had stolen money from him.
The Supreme Court has previously imposed limits on the use of a confession in these circumstances, including that the defendant's name has to be removed and cannot simply be replaced with the notation "redacted." In Samia's trial, he was described in the confession as "someone" and "the other person."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
