Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Immigrant

[trauma74 111]

All I have to say about this is, WTF?!

It looks like ICE is no longer able to deport immigrants with state felony drug convictions that would classify as a misdemeanor under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. I love it how the Supreme Court allows convicted FELONS to live amongst us.

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an immigrant who was deported to Mexico after being convicted of a crime that would be classified as a misdemeanor under federal law. The high court’s ruling could affect thousands of immigrants who have engaged in some sort of illegal behavior, by allowing immigration judges discretion when it comes to deciding whether or not they can remain in the United States.

In this case, Jose Antonio Lopez, a 16-year permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in South Dakota. Under South Dakota state law, the crime is a felony. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, though, it is a misdemeanor, since it was Lopez’s first offense.

A year after his conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against him, prompting Lopez to file an application for cancellation of the removal as a long-time permanent resident pursuant to Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) section 240A(a). Under that provision, the Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is deportable from the U.S. if the alien: (1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; (2) has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status; and (3) has not been convicted of any “aggravated felony.”

Lopez’s application was denied, however, by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court held that Lopez’s South Dakota drug conviction was an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of determining that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal, even though his offense would have only qualified as a misdemeanor under federal law. Lopez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained that the INA makes Lopez guilty of an aggravated felony if he has been convicted of illicit trafficking in a controlled substance including, but not limited to, a drug trafficking crime, as defined in section 924© of title 18. Lopez’s state conviction was for helping someone else possess cocaine in South Dakota, which state law treated as the equivalent of possessing the drug, a state felony. The high court added that mere possession is not, however, a felony under the federal CSA, although possessing more than what one person would have for himself will support conviction for the federal felony of possession with intent to distribute.

Despite this federal misdemeanor treatment, the Government argued that possession’s “felonious character” as a state crime can turn it into an aggravated felony under the INA. There, illicit trafficking includes a drug trafficking crime as defined in Title 18, and that statute defines “drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” Since the Controlled Substances Act punishes possession, albeit as a misdemeanor, that is enough, says the Government, because the pertinent statute requires only that the offense be punishable, not that it be punishable as a federal felony. Thus, the Government contends, a prior conviction in state court will satisfy the felony element because the State treats possession that way.

The Supreme Court, however, found a number of things wrong with the Government’s argument, the first being its “incoherence” with respect to any “commonsense” concept of “illicit trafficking,” which is the term ultimately being defined in this case. The Court explained that “trafficking” should be given its “everyday understanding” since it is not defined in the statute. “And ordinarily ‘trafficking’ means some sort of commercial dealing,” the Court said. Reading the statute the Government’s way, then, “would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position,” the Court stated. While Congress is free to define an aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in an unexpected way, the Court added, “Congress would need to tell us so, and there are good reasons to think it was doing no such thing here.”

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act does not constitute a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.”

The case is Lopez v. Gonzales, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 05-547, December 5, 2006.

=