{"id":496528,"date":"2010-03-31T15:05:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-31T19:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4079894.post-4035614013390558305"},"modified":"2010-03-31T15:05:00","modified_gmt":"2010-03-31T19:05:00","slug":"supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-immigration-criminal-contempt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/496528","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court hears arguments on immigration, criminal contempt"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the court heard arguments on whether a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession (a federal law misdemeanor) has been &#8220;convicted&#8221; of an &#8220;aggravated felony&#8221; on the theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist simple possession (a federal law felony), even though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction in his prosecution for possession. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a lawful permanent resident who has been &#8220;convicted&#8221; of an &#8220;aggravated felony&#8221; is ineligible to seek cancellation of removal. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a state law conviction for simple drug possession could be an &#8220;aggravated felony&#8221; if the defendant could have been charged with a felony, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Counsel for the petitioner, Carachuri-Rosendo argued that, &#8220;ndividuals, such as Petitioner, who have been convicted of drug possession but as to whom there has been no finding of recidivism, have been convicted of a misdemeanor punishable under the Controlled Substances Act rather than a felony.&#8221; Counsel for the US government argued that, &#8220;Congress&#8217;s judgment here was that all aliens who engage in the same serious conduct would be treated the same for immigration purposes.&#8221;<br \/>\nIn Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, the court heard arguments on whether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may constitutionally be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the US. Counsel for the petitioner, John Robertson, argued:The United States now agrees that the fact that a criminal offense may only be prosecuted by the sovereign is a foundational premise of our Constitution. Because Mr. Robertson was prosecuted for criminal contempt in a private right of action, his prosecution was unconstitutional, a nullity in our view, and his convictions must be vacated.Counsel for US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of respondent that:when a single US Attorney&#8217;s Office says that the government will decide to drop a certain set of charges, that US Attorney&#8217;s Office we believe is &#8211; is speaking for itself, unless there is some indication that it is speaking more widely in such a way that will bind other parts of the government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases. In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the court heard arguments on whether a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession (a federal law misdemeanor) has been &#8220;convicted&#8221; of an &#8220;aggravated felony&#8221; on the theory that he could have been prosecuted for recidivist simple [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4174,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-496528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4174"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=496528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=496528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=496528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=496528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}