June 12, 2021

SCOTUS offers surprising reprieve in deportation case

The Supreme Court offered a surprising reprieve on Thursday in a case involving thousands of illegal immigrants facing deportation in a 6-3 decision in favor of the liberal side of the court. 

The decision split the court’s conservative majority. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal colleagues, agreeing the U.S. government is required to provide defendants in deportation cases with a single, comprehensive document detailing the case against them.

“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,” Gorsuch wrote in the decision.

The case involved Agusto Niz-Chavez, an illegal immigrant who lived in Michigan since 2005. The court’s decision overturned a lower court ruling that stopped Niz-Chavez from moving forward with a request to revoke his deportation due to how long he had stayed in the nation.

The implications of the case could impact many immigrants nationwide. Immigrants in a similar situation will now have the ability to restate their case against their deportation based on the ruling.

The decision occurs as President Joe Biden has faced much controversy for the number of illegal immigrants entering across the nation’s southern border during his term. He also signed an executive order to stop most deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency.

The president tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the nation’s response to the immigration surge more than a month ago. She plans to address the “root causes” of immigration, though she has not visited the nation’s southern border.

The court’s decision also comes as conservatives, along with some Democrats, have criticized the president’s immigration changes as harmful to the nation, particularly to communities along the nation’s southern border.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

12 Responses

  1. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is where I started.

    Check The Details……..———>>>> http://www.works79.com

  2. Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything. you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.

    The potential with this is endless…>>>>>> http://www.works91.com

  3. The comment by Lana has no business in the comment area. If she wants to advertise, take out an ad and pay for it. Where are the censors on this ad?
    Harris has done nothing in her role of overseeing what is going on at the border. Just another lazy democrat who cannot do her job.

  4. This ruling is crazy. What law can I break, which causes me to break more laws, and get away with breaking it. Especially, when breaking the law causes the American taxpayers so much money?

  5. Scotus, what the heck? Deport all of them starting yesterday. They are here illegally and have NO rights. The American people are disgusted with the scotus not following the laws. ENOUGH!! wE DON’T WANT YOUR POLITICAL OPINIONS. If you can’t do your jobs properly, turn in your gavels.

  6. Kamala Harris plans to address the “root causes” of immigration. In other words, she doesn’t plan to do anything: The root cause of immigration is an open border.

  7. All of the illegals, including back to 15 years should all be deported back to their origins from which they came from.

  8. Another turncoat move from SCOTUS. I guess they need a dictionary to define the word “illegal”.

Leave a Reply to Don Cancel reply

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

OUR TWEETS

PRESIDENT'S TWEETS

Sign Up For The Daily Newsletter

SYNDICATED NEWS