The Supreme Court Conservative Wing is divided over Deportations after a recent case where a Guatemalan man was saved from Deportation by Trump Judges.
Justices ruled Thursday in favor of an Illegal Alien fighting removal via deportation, causing a divide among the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch (a Trump Appointee) was joined by fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett and three other Liberal Justices to rule in favor of an illegal from Guatemala. The Alien arrived in 2005 fighting deportation after the justices claimed that the federal government did not give him the proper deportation notices.
Justice Kavanaugh, Samual Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts wherein the dissent
The Justices claim that someone facing removal could be saved if they reside in the country for more than ten years. When the Alien by the name of Agusto Niz-Chavez got a notice for removal back in 2013 was lawful he would have resided in the US for 8 Years and could be removed, but since it has been deemed unlawful, he may stay as its been more than ten years.
The Other issue with the case, according to the justices, is the word “a” as in a single document. According to the justices, the federal government must notify those set for removal in one notice. Unlike the case of Mr. Chaves, he was notified in 2 different notifications, which means that Mr. Chaves was not notified adequately. Now, this ruling allows Agusto chavez to apply for permission to stay.
“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that,” He went on to say, “But words are how the law constrains power.” He continued, “In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him,”
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH DISSENT
“The Court today agrees with Niz-Chavez that, in order to stop the 10-year clock, the Government must provide written notice in one document, not two,” he went on to say. “I find the Court’s conclusion rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.”
Let us know what you think in the comments below and PLEASE consider sharing this report on social media