Supreme Court sides with immigrants in recent pair of rulings
Landmark Rulings Champion Immigrant Rights
In a pivotal moment this Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued two separate opinions that resoundingly support the rights of immigrants, setting a compelling precedent for future cases.
Unanimous Decision Backs Sudanese-American’s Claim Against FBI
Justice Neil Gorsuch presided over a pivotal case, FBI v. Fikre, where the court arrived at a unanimous decision to bolster a U.S. citizen and Sudanese immigrant’s legal suit against the FBI. This ruling challenges the agency’s previous action of placing him on a no-fly list, showcasing the court’s commitment to due process and individual rights.
Despite Yonas Fikre’s name having been cleared from the no-fly list since the initiation of his lawsuit, the high court recognized that his case was far from moot. With his reputation and due process claims hanging in the balance, the court decided that these matters warranted a thorough examination in the lower courts.
The underlying principle rang clear in the majority opinion: “A court with jurisdiction has a ’virtually unflagging obligation’ to hear and resolve questions properly before it.”
The genesis of Fikre’s ordeal began in 2010 in Sudan, where FBI agents approached him with an offer to become a government informant, which he refused. His subsequent inclusion on the no-fly list led to his legal battle for vindication.
Thomas Berry from the Cato Institute highlighted the significance of this judgment, saying the Supreme Court “treated the government just like any other defendant,” refusing to grant it any undue “presumption of regularity” that isn’t afforded to other parties.
Deportation Case Opens Door for Judicial Review Expansion
The court continued its defense of immigrant rights in another judgment authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In a 6-3 decision, it corrected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit’s error when it claimed it lacked jurisdiction to review an immigration judge’s determination.
This key decision provided Situ Wilkinson, originally from Trinidad and Tobago, a renewed opportunity to argue that his son, a U.S. citizen, would face “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in the event of Wilkinson’s deportation.
For years since his visa overstay in 2003, Wilkinson has forged a life in the United States. This ruling breathes new life into his chance to continue his American dream.
Justice Sotomayor clarified the legal landscape: “The question in this case is whether the [immigration judge’s] hardship determination is reviewable under §1252(a)(2)D), which gives Courts of Appeals jurisdiction to review ‘questions of law’,” she penned, affirming, “This Court holds that it is.”
While the 3rd Circuit previously washed its hands of jurisdiction, based on a subsection that seemed to render such judgments non-reviewable, this decisive Supreme Court stance has clarified the boundaries of judicial review in deportation matters.
These groundbreaking rulings mark a notable shift towards upholding immigrant rights, ensuring a fairer legal process, and potentially altering the landscape of immigration law for years to come.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
