{"id":493,"date":"2018-04-20T16:27:37","date_gmt":"2018-04-20T16:27:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ielrblog.com\/?p=493"},"modified":"2018-04-20T16:34:51","modified_gmt":"2018-04-20T16:34:51","slug":"opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that part of a federal law used to deport immigrants who have been convicted of aggravated felonies is unconstitutionally vague, and thus violates the Fifth Amendment&#8217;s Due Process Clause. The case, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/17pdf\/15-1498_1b8e.pdf\"><em>Sessions v. Dimaya<\/em><\/a>, concerns the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).<\/p>\n<p>The INA defines \u201caggravated felony\u201d by listing types of offenses, often cross-referencing federal criminal statutes. One type of offense listed is a \u201ccrime of violence\u2026 for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.\u201d 18 USC \u00a7 16 provides the definition of \u201ccrime of violence\u201d for the purposes of the INA. \u00a7 16 consists of two clauses, which are commonly referred to as the elements clause and the residual clause. The former states that \u201c(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,\u201d while the latter states that \u201c(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The respondent in the case, James Dimaya, is a lawful permanent resident with two convictions of first-degree burglary under California law. The DOJ determined that burglaries constituted \u201ccrimes of violence,\u201d and that Dimaya was thus subject to deportation under the INA. The immigration court had ruled that Dimaya was deportable based on the crime of violence grounds.<\/p>\n<p>Dimaya appealed. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court ruled in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/14pdf\/13-7120_p86b.pdf\">Johnson v. United States<\/a><\/em>. the residual clause of another law, the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA), unconstitutionally vague, and thus in violation of the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit, citing the <em>Johnson <\/em>decision as precedent, ruled the residual clause of the INA unconstitutionally vague as well.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision that has Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the liberal wing of the Court, has affirmed the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Kagan\u2019s Opinion for the Court <\/em><\/p>\n<p>Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority in <em>Dimaya.<\/em> As Kagan explains:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I[n sum, \u00a716(b) has the same \u201c[t]wo features\u201d that \u201cconspire[d] to make [ACCA\u2019s residual clause] unconstitutionally vague.\u201d Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5). It too \u201crequires a court to picture the kind of conduct that the crime involves in \u2018the ordinary case,\u2019 and to judge whether that abstraction presents\u201d some not-well-specified-yet-sufficiently-large degree of risk. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 4). The result is that \u00a716(b) produces, just as ACCA\u2019s residual clause did, \u201cmore unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here Kagan reasons that 18 USC \u00a7 16\u2019s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague for the same reasons that the ACCA\u2019s residual clause was:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>It requires that a court imagine what a crime entails in an \u201cordinary case.\u201d (In reference to this point, Kagan asks, \u201cWe can as well repeat here what we asked in Johnson: How does one go about divining the conduct entailed in a crime\u2019s ordinary case? Statistical analyses? Surveys? Experts? Google? Gut instinct?\u201c) and<\/li>\n<li>16(b), much like the ACCA, requires still an even further degree of abstraction \u2013 it requires the judge to determine whether the imagined \u201cordinary case\u201d presented a sufficient \u2013 but still undefined &#8212; degree of risk.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Kagan\u2019s opinion was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch, in part.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Gorsuch\u2019s Concurring Opinion<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Gorsuch concurs with the majority that the residual clause of \u00a7 16 is unconstitutionally vague. \u201cCalifornia burglary,\u201d he writes, \u201capplies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force?\u201d <span class='bctt-click-to-tweet'><span class='bctt-ctt-text'><a href='https:\/\/x.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp.me%2Fpas6ng-7X&#038;text=Where%20Gorsuch%20diverges%20from%20Kagan%20and%20the%20majority%2C%20however%2C%20is%20in%20his%20reasoning.%20Gorsuch%20reasons%20that%20the%20%E2%80%9Cordinary%20case%E2%80%9D%20abstraction%20that%20the%20INA%20requires%20on%20the%20part%20of%20a%20judge%20violates%20the%20fair%20notice%20standard%20%E2%80%93%20a%20standard%20set%20by%20the%E2%80%A6&#038;via=ielr&#038;related=ielr' target='_blank'rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Where Gorsuch diverges from Kagan and the majority, however, is in his reasoning. Gorsuch reasons that the \u201cordinary case\u201d abstraction that the INA requires on the part of a judge violates the fair notice standard \u2013 a standard set by the\u2026 <\/a><\/span><a href='https:\/\/x.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp.me%2Fpas6ng-7X&#038;text=Where%20Gorsuch%20diverges%20from%20Kagan%20and%20the%20majority%2C%20however%2C%20is%20in%20his%20reasoning.%20Gorsuch%20reasons%20that%20the%20%E2%80%9Cordinary%20case%E2%80%9D%20abstraction%20that%20the%20INA%20requires%20on%20the%20part%20of%20a%20judge%20violates%20the%20fair%20notice%20standard%20%E2%80%93%20a%20standard%20set%20by%20the%E2%80%A6&#038;via=ielr&#038;related=ielr' target='_blank' class='bctt-ctt-btn'rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Share on X<\/a><\/span>\u00a0The fair notice standard holds a law in violation of the Due Process Clause if it does not give an individual \u201cfair notice\u201d of what actions it criminalizes. Gorsuch writes with respect to 18 USC \u00a7 16, \u201c[t]he implacable fact is that this isn\u2019t your everyday ambiguous statute. It leaves the people to guess about what the law demands\u2014and leaves judges to make it up.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Roberts\u2019s and Thomas\u2019s Dissents\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice Roberts dissented on the grounds that the Dimaya case is meaningfully distinct from the ACCA under scrutiny in <em>Johnson<\/em>. In particular, Roberts argues that \u00a716(b) is less vague in three ways:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Regarding how to estimate the risk a crime poses 16(b) asks for a \u201ccommonsense inquiry of simply, \u201crisk,\u201d while the ACCA residual clause required estimate of \u201cserious potential risk;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>16(b) requires in the risk analysis that the judge consider the risk of \u201cphysical force\u201d against another person or property be likely, while the ACCA only required consideration of the risk that \u201cinjury will result from a person\u2019s conduct;\u201d and<\/li>\n<li>16(b) proposes a \u201ctemporal limit\u201d that the risk of physical force arises \u201cin the course of committing the offense.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Roberts was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas, with whom Alito and Kennedy joined in part, also dissented. He agrees with Roberts that \u00a716(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. He diverges from Roberts, however, in arguing that the vagueness doctrine is not consistent with the original meaning of the Due Process Clause. \u201cSection 16(b), as incorporated by the INA, cannot violate th[e Due Process] Clause,\u201d Thomas reasons, \u201c unless the following propositions are true: The Due Process Clause requires federal statutes to provide certain minimal procedures, the vagueness doctrine is one of those procedures, and the vagueness doctrine applies to statutes governing the removal of aliens. Although I need not resolve any of these propositions today, each one is questionable.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;<\/p>\n<p><span class='bctt-click-to-tweet'><span class='bctt-ctt-text'><a href='https:\/\/x.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp.me%2Fpas6ng-7X&#038;text=While%20Gorsuch%E2%80%99s%20alignment%20with%20the%20liberal%20wing%20of%20the%20Court%20may%20seem%20surprising%2C%20it%20is%20consistent%20with%20his%20originalist%20philosophy%2C%20as%20well%20as%20that%20of%20his%20predecessor%2C%20Justice%20Antonin%20Scalia.&#038;via=ielr&#038;related=ielr' target='_blank'rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">While Gorsuch\u2019s alignment with the liberal wing of the Court may seem surprising, it is consistent with his originalist philosophy, as well as that of his predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia. <\/a><\/span><a href='https:\/\/x.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp.me%2Fpas6ng-7X&#038;text=While%20Gorsuch%E2%80%99s%20alignment%20with%20the%20liberal%20wing%20of%20the%20Court%20may%20seem%20surprising%2C%20it%20is%20consistent%20with%20his%20originalist%20philosophy%2C%20as%20well%20as%20that%20of%20his%20predecessor%2C%20Justice%20Antonin%20Scalia.&#038;via=ielr&#038;related=ielr' target='_blank' class='bctt-ctt-btn'rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Share on X<\/a><\/span> Justice Scalia also sided with the liberal wing of the Court in <em>Johnson v. United States<\/em>. Writing for the majority In Johnson, Scalia argues: \u201cWe are convinced that the indeterminacy of the wide-ranging inquiry required by the residual clause both denies fair notice to defendants and invites arbitrary enforcement by judges. Increasing a defendant\u2019s sentence under the clause denies due process of law.\u201d Gorsuch, in his concurring judgement in <em>Dimaya<\/em>, echoes his originalist counterpart.<\/p>\n<p>The Trump administration\u2019s focus on immigration enforcement means the Court will likely intervene in more criminal removal cases in the near future. The Roberts Court immigration record has been mixed thus far, with the narrow majority ruling to curb immigrants\u2019 rights in some cases, such as <em>Jennings v. Rodrieguez<\/em>, and expanding immigrants\u2019 rights in others, as they did this week in <em>Dimaya<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that part of a federal law used to deport immigrants who have been convicted of aggravated felonies is unconstitutionally vague, and thus violates the Fifth Amendment&#8217;s Due Process Clause. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, concerns the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA defines \u201caggravated felony\u201d by listing types [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":414,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-493","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-immigration","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that part of a federal law used to deport immigrants who have been convicted of aggravated felonies is unconstitutionally vague, and thus violates the Fifth Amendment&#8217;s Due Process Clause. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, concerns the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA defines \u201caggravated felony\u201d by listing types [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IELR Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/intlenforcementlawreporter\/?ref=bookmarks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Zarine Kharazian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ielr\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ielr\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Zarine Kharazian\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Zarine Kharazian\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\"},\"headline\":\"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1174,\"commentCount\":1,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"articleSection\":[\"Immigration\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/02\\\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1\",\"width\":200,\"height\":200},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/20\\\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"IELR Blog\",\"description\":\"Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544\",\"name\":\"Zarine Kharazian\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Zarine Kharazian\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ielrblog.com\\\/index.php\\\/author\\\/zarine-kharazian\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog","og_description":"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that part of a federal law used to deport immigrants who have been convicted of aggravated felonies is unconstitutionally vague, and thus violates the Fifth Amendment&#8217;s Due Process Clause. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, concerns the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA defines \u201caggravated felony\u201d by listing types [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/","og_site_name":"IELR Blog","article_publisher":"https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/intlenforcementlawreporter\/?ref=bookmarks","article_published_time":"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":200,"height":200,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Zarine Kharazian","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ielr","twitter_site":"@ielr","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Zarine Kharazian","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Zarine Kharazian","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544"},"headline":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act","datePublished":"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/"},"wordCount":1174,"commentCount":1,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","articleSection":["Immigration"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/","url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/","name":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act | IELR Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","datePublished":"2018-04-20T16:27:37+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T16:34:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","width":200,"height":200},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2018\/04\/20\/opinion-analysis-in-5-4-ruling-scotus-strikes-down-part-of-immigration-and-nationality-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Opinion Analysis: In 5-4 Ruling, SCOTUS Strikes Down Part of Immigration and Nationality Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/","name":"IELR Blog","description":"Official Blog of the International Enforcement Law Reporter","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/#\/schema\/person\/d97d5908cb441bbcaed11eaad074b544","name":"Zarine Kharazian","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ed80380bc8641773fc0a6e8c5dbfbcea53b521d2cddf4cd8e38d085691ea0a4d?s=96&d=monsterid&r=g","caption":"Zarine Kharazian"},"url":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/author\/zarine-kharazian\/"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ielrblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/ielr-fb-logo.jpg?fit=200%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pas6ng-7X","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=493"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":499,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493\/revisions\/499"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}