US Supreme Court Hears Deportation Cases
April 24, 2001
Washington, D.C.-- The US Supreme Court on Tuesday was asked to decide how much judicial review is allowed by a pair of 1996 laws intended to speed up the deportation of immigrants convicted of crimes.
At issue are two 1996 laws, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. They dramatically altered the government's treatment of permanent resident aliens who commit crimes or face deportation for other reasons.
Previously, some persons facing deportation for committing a crime could seek a waiver from the attorney general. The new laws barred such waivers for those convicted of aggravated felonies.
The new laws also said deportation orders must be reviewed in federal appeals courts rather than in federal trial courts. Those convicted of aggravated felonies and drug crimes generally were not entitled to court review at all.
The US Justice Department argued before the court that Congress changed the laws to keep immigrants who are in the United States legally, but have been convicted of crimes, from tying up the courts in efforts to stay in the country. According to Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, lawmakers also thought the attorney general was too generous in granting waivers of deportation.
"They wanted to take that away, and they wanted to take that away now," Kneedler said.
Lucas Guttentag, the lawyer for several immigrants facing deportation responded, "Never in our country's history has an alien been subject to deportation without the judicial branch" being able to review such decisions.
"The Constitution does not permit denying judicial scrutiny," Guttentag said. The immigrants whose rights are at issue are "legal permanent residents," he added.
The laws were challenged by an immigrant from Haiti who pleaded guilty to a drug crime in Connecticut, and by natives of the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Guyana who were ordered deported for drug crimes committed in New York state.
Federal officials ordered them deported and said they could not seek a waiver even though they were convicted before the laws took effect.
The immigrants went to federal court, saying the ban on waivers should not apply to them. In each case, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they could go to a federal trial court. Denying all court review would raise serious constitutional questions, the court said.
The Immigration Service contends that the ban on waivers applies to people convicted of a crime before the new laws took effect, so long as deportation proceedings were started after the laws' effective date. They do not have the right to challenge that legal conclusion in court, although they do have the right to challenge the conviction itself, the government argued.
Justice Steven G. Breyer questioned whether it is fair to deport someone, without a chance of a waiver, for a crime committed during a time when a waiver was available. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy added that some immigrants entered guilty pleas knowing that they could seek a waiver.
"That's a legal consequence that's been changed," Kennedy said.
The justices are expected to rule by July. The cases are Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 00-767, and Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 00-1011.
