The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.
The Supreme Court not only vacated the appeals court’s decision, but also criticized the judges for “drastically” straying from judicial norms.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.
“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”
read more:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/
More informationon the case:
- Respondent Sineneng-Smith ran an "immigration consulting firm" in California. Her alien clients worked (without employment authorization) in health care.
- Although she knew that her clients could not meet the April 30, 2001, deadline for filing an application for a labor certification (required for section 245(i) relief), she charged each client $5,900 to file an application with the Department of Labor and another $900 to file with U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. For her services, she collected more than $3.3 million from her unwitting clients.
- For these offenses, she was charged criminally with three counts under section 274(a) (1)(A)(iv) of the INA, and convicted at the district court level on two of those counts.
- She appealed that conviction to the Ninth Circuit, making the same arguments that she had previously made to avoid conviction on those counts at the district court. The Ninth Circuit heard arguments in that case, submitted the matter for a decision, and then filed an order requesting amicus briefing (including by three named amici), including on an issue that had not been raised by the parties — whether section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) was unconstitutionally overbroad.
- The parties were limited in their supplemental briefs to the issues raised by amici.
- The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, an issue that the court itself had originally raised.
- In a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit panel's decision was a departure from the principle of party presentation so drastic that it constituted an abuse of discretion. That principle provides that it is up to the parties, not the courts, to frame the issues for the court's decision — the court itself is supposed to be just a neutral arbiter of those matters.
- In a stinging rebuke, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion and remanded the matter to the circuit court "for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties."
The Supreme Court took a swipe yesterday at the Ninth Circuit's handling of a case that involved a violation of section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ("Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens"). In football terms, that decision was a tackle of the Ninth Circuit for its judicial activism, not a punt on the constitutionality of the statute.
The case in question, U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, involved an individual who ran an "immigration consulting firm" in California. Her clients, primarily Filipino nationals, worked (without employment authorization) in health care. Between 2001 and 2008, respondent "assisted her clients in applying for a 'labor certification' that once allowed certain aliens to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident", specifically section 245(i)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA.
By way of brief background, section 245(a) of the INA allows an alien to adjust status to that of lawful permanent resident if the alien has been admitted or paroled into the United States and is eligible for an immigrant visa that is available to the applicant when the application is filed. Adjustment is an exception to the rule that an alien in the United States who is the beneficiary of an approved visa petition must travel abroad to pick up an immigrant visa and reenter the United States as a lawful permanent resident.
Section 245(c) of the INA contains various other exceptions to this rule, including that adjustment of status under section 245(a) is generally not available to an alien who accepts unauthorized employment or who is in unlawful status at the time of filing an adjustment application, or has failed to maintain continuous lawful status since entry into the United States.
Section 245(i) provides a path to adjustment for certain applicants who fall within the aforementioned exceptions and pay a fine. Most relevant to this case, section 245(i)(1)(B)(ii) allows an alien who would be barred from adjustment to apply for that relief if the alien is a beneficiary of a labor certification that was filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) on or before April 30, 2001, and was in the United States on December 21, 2000.
The respondent in this case, however, knew that her clients could not meet the deadline for filing an application for a labor certification required for section 245(i) relief. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the unanimous Court, explained:
Nevertheless, she charged each client $5,900 to file an application with the Department of Labor and another $900 to file with the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. For her services in this regard, she collected more than $3.3 million from her unwitting clients.
The respondent was charged with, among other things, three counts of violating section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, a charge that carries with it a fine and imprisonment for up to 10 years. That provision states:
Any person who- ... encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law ... shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
That clause is among five that criminalizes various acts related to the bringing in or harboring of aliens; the last criminalizes conspiring or aiding and abetting any of the preceding four criminal acts.
Specifically, respondent was charged with encouraging or inducing aliens to reside in the United States, as well as with mail fraud (not at issue before the Supreme Court). At the district court level, respondent moved to dismiss the charges premised on section 274(a)(1)(A)(iv).
more here:
https://cis.org/Arthur/SCOTUS-Takes-Swipe-Ninth-Circuit-Case-Dealing-Alien-Harboring-Statute
Replies