Did Neil Gorsuch just betray his conservative base? Given the blowback to his ruling today in a case today, that seems to be the case.
The court ruled 5-4 on the case, which involved an immigrant convicted of a residential burglary who was facing deportation. The case centered around the term “crime of violence” – which the court found was unconstitutionally vague. In doing so, this decision upholds a prior ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to the Washington Examiner:
Gorsuch cast the deciding vote by joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan, who make up the court’s liberal wing.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy dissented.
The justices heard the case last year, but deadlocked 4-4 after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.It was heard again on the first day of the term that began in October, indicating Gorsuch, the newest member of the court, would cast the deciding vote.
The immigrant in question is James Garcia Dimaya, a lawful permanent resident of the Philippines. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted of residential burglary, which Obama’s Department of Homeland Security sought to deport him over, as they determined the crimes could be considered “crimes of violence.”
Not all conservatives disagree with Gorsuch though. Former Red State CEO Erick Erickson argued that the law was simply so vague that it would allow biased judges to exercise whatever discretion they want. For instance, if a burglary could be considered a “crime of violence,” especially in the case of Dimaya where there was no physical violence, what else could? Would this open up the possibility that a legal immigrant could be deported for shoplifting?
I'm actually reading Gorsuch's concurrence and find myself nodding along with him. https://t.co/IkcVT2XoW9 His basic argument is that the law, as construed, gives judges way too much discretion to act on their whims because Congress was too vague in how it wrote the law.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 17, 2018
While it would be reasonable to keep deportation open as a punishment for egregious crimes committed by legal immigrants, the Supreme Court case here is over where we draw the line. In the opinion of Gorsuch, that line had previously been invisible.
What do you think? Do you think that Gorsuch made the right call in this particular case? Let us know in the comments section below.
