Supreme Court Limits Automatic Deportation
On April 23, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an important decision that limited the power of the federal government to deport immigrants who are here legally for relatively minor criminal offenses.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices sided with Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican green-card holder and longtime U.S. resident, who the government deported over the possession of a small amount of marijuana.
The court found that Moncrieffe was denied the opportunity to contest the deportation.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said that automatic deportation was wrong because the offense wasn't serious enough. Sotomayor said that, for Moncrieffe to have been deported without a chance to defend himself, the offense should have been either the sale of the drug or possession of more than just a small amount.
The ruling is an important precedent because it helps clarify the rights of green-card holders, and it sheds more light on the types of criminal offenses that warrant automatic deportations.
Often, the government has dropped deportation in cases similar to Moncrieffe's where the crime was simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. Moncrieffe, 32, who had lived in the United States since he was 3, is expected to return here now that the decision has come down.
The case began with his arrest in 2007 in Georgia.
Police stopped him in his car and found 1.3 grams of marijuana inside, the equivalent of two or three cigarettes. Prosecutors charged him with possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute, a weighty charge considering the small amount of drugs involved.
Moncrieffe took a plea deal that called for no jail time and the expunging of his record if he successfully completed probation. But two years later, immigration agents arrested him and immediately initiated deportation proceedings. He was treated as if he was a major drug dealer instead of a minor offender.
In her opinion, Sotomayor said that under immigration law, a conviction that “fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana” should not be considered an aggravated felony and trigger automatic deportation.
She said that just because Moncrieffe's offense was relatively minor didn't mean he should not be deported. But, she said, the government was wrong to deport him automatically without giving him the opportunity to contest deportation. As Sotomayor wrote: "Escaping aggravated felony treatment does not mean escaping deportation...It means only avoiding mandatory removal."
Sotomayor argued that, in the tug-of-war between state and federal jurisdictions over enforcement of their different drug laws, the benefit of the doubt should have gone to Moncrieffe who deserved the chance to defend himself against deportation.
The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the decision in the case (Moncrieffe v. Holder) and lamented the courts' harsh treatment of immigrants across the country who commit minor violations.
“This draconian deportation regime is fundamentally out of step with vital American values,” Molly Lauterback and Rebecca McCray wrote, commenting on the decision for the ACLU website. “Given the harsh penalty of deportation, judges should have the discretion to do justice in individual cases and consider whether someone should be banished or allowed to stay. Indeed, eight in 10 Americans agree that no one should be deported without a judge being able to evaluate the circumstances of his or her case. And letting judges do justice does not exempt immigrants from possible deportation.”
In his dissent, Justice Thomas pointed to the conflict between state and federal laws, and which should have precedence in immigration matters. Thomas said the majority opinion “has the effect of treating a substantial number of state felonies as federal misdemeanors, even when they would result in federal felony convictions.”
In a 7-2 decision, the justices sided with Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican green-card holder and longtime U.S. resident, who the government deported over the possession of a small amount of marijuana.
The court found that Moncrieffe was denied the opportunity to contest the deportation.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said that automatic deportation was wrong because the offense wasn't serious enough. Sotomayor said that, for Moncrieffe to have been deported without a chance to defend himself, the offense should have been either the sale of the drug or possession of more than just a small amount.
The ruling is an important precedent because it helps clarify the rights of green-card holders, and it sheds more light on the types of criminal offenses that warrant automatic deportations.
Often, the government has dropped deportation in cases similar to Moncrieffe's where the crime was simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. Moncrieffe, 32, who had lived in the United States since he was 3, is expected to return here now that the decision has come down.
The case began with his arrest in 2007 in Georgia.
Police stopped him in his car and found 1.3 grams of marijuana inside, the equivalent of two or three cigarettes. Prosecutors charged him with possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute, a weighty charge considering the small amount of drugs involved.
Moncrieffe took a plea deal that called for no jail time and the expunging of his record if he successfully completed probation. But two years later, immigration agents arrested him and immediately initiated deportation proceedings. He was treated as if he was a major drug dealer instead of a minor offender.
In her opinion, Sotomayor said that under immigration law, a conviction that “fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana” should not be considered an aggravated felony and trigger automatic deportation.
She said that just because Moncrieffe's offense was relatively minor didn't mean he should not be deported. But, she said, the government was wrong to deport him automatically without giving him the opportunity to contest deportation. As Sotomayor wrote: "Escaping aggravated felony treatment does not mean escaping deportation...It means only avoiding mandatory removal."
Sotomayor argued that, in the tug-of-war between state and federal jurisdictions over enforcement of their different drug laws, the benefit of the doubt should have gone to Moncrieffe who deserved the chance to defend himself against deportation.
The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the decision in the case (Moncrieffe v. Holder) and lamented the courts' harsh treatment of immigrants across the country who commit minor violations.
“This draconian deportation regime is fundamentally out of step with vital American values,” Molly Lauterback and Rebecca McCray wrote, commenting on the decision for the ACLU website. “Given the harsh penalty of deportation, judges should have the discretion to do justice in individual cases and consider whether someone should be banished or allowed to stay. Indeed, eight in 10 Americans agree that no one should be deported without a judge being able to evaluate the circumstances of his or her case. And letting judges do justice does not exempt immigrants from possible deportation.”
In his dissent, Justice Thomas pointed to the conflict between state and federal laws, and which should have precedence in immigration matters. Thomas said the majority opinion “has the effect of treating a substantial number of state felonies as federal misdemeanors, even when they would result in federal felony convictions.”