 "Photo: www.illinoisfamily.org")
According to a recent New York Times editorial entitled "Justice for Immigrants," the Supreme Court begins it's new term with oral arguments regarding two immigrant cases, Lopez v. Gonzales, and Toledo-Flores v. United States, which will be decided simultaneously. This is the first case in Chief Justice John Roberts' second term as head of the Supreme Court. Out of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, eight took part in the questioning of lawyers, with the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas.
The constitutional question involved in these cases is the meaning of the words "illicit trafficking," and since the Judicial Branch of the government is responsible for interpreting laws, the Supreme Court will interpret the semantics of immigration law. The lower courts have given "illicit trafficking" a wrong interpretation, and as a result, if immigrants are convicted of petty crimes such as violations or misdemeanors they may suffer deportation, or be given harsher sentences and be charged with "aggravated felonies."
This case is significant since it deals with federalism, a division of powers between state and local governments. Under federal immigration law, "illicit trafficking" falls under the category of "aggravated felonies." Drug trafficking is the association of drugs in commercial activity, such as the selling of drugs. However, many lower courts have neglected this meaning and interpreted it in a stricter way, as the mere possession of drugs alone which is an "aggravated felony."
According to Supreme Court Justice Souter, this case is problematic since "state and federal law are both at odds when it comes to determining the gravity of the offense." Jose Antonio Lopez, a sixteen-year permanent resident of the United States, originally from the state of South Dakota, pleaded guilty to assisting and abetting possession of cocaine. Under South Dakota law, this crime is a felony; however, under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the crime is considered a misdemeanor if it is the defendant's initial offense for cocaine possession, as it was in Lopez's case. The federal appeals court has concluded that Lopez's crime should be considered an "aggravated felony," limiting the defendant's ability to fight deportation, be granted asylum or become a naturalized United States citizen. This brings about the following question: How can a federal appeals court consider this crime a felony if it is considered a misdemeanor on the federal level? Does the 14th Constitutional amendment's Equal Protection Clause not apply in this case?
Reymundo Toledo-Flores, a Mexican citizen, was convicted of the possession of cocaine, as well as illegally entering the United States. He is questioning his prison term for drug possession, not his deportation, as to whether or not it is an aggravated felony. Due to this legal hyperbole, many serious consequences have resulted. Immigrants are barred from ever becoming American citizens, and if they commit future crimes then their sentences will be much harsher. The Supreme Court needs to set a precedent once and for all on this controversial issue regarding immigration justice. Hopefully, the rule with result in the defendants' favor, since Mr. Toledo-Flores and Mr. Lopez's crimes relating to drug possession are by no means "aggravated felonies." A recent American Bar Association amicus curie, a friend-of-the-court statement, describes this case the best: the unfair treatment of immigrant as if they have committed serious offenses truly disrupts the integrity and due process of our criminal justice system, in addition to individual injustice. Besides, the inscription on the entrance of the Supreme Court building reads "Equal Justice Under Law."
Be the first to comment on this article!