• About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
The Wellesley News -
  • News and Features
    • Four Cases of COVID-19 Reported During Winter Break
      Four Cases of COVID-19 Reported During Winter Break
    • Students With Medically Restricted Diets Struggle to Eat On Campus
      Students With Medically Restricted Diets Struggle to Eat On Campus
    • Students find new ways to celebrate Diwali
      Students find new ways to celebrate Diwali
    • News
      • News in Brief
      • Nation & World
      • President’s Corner
      • Senate Report
    • Features
      • Alumnae Spotlight
      • Eye on Science
      • Faculty Focus
      • LGBTQIA+ Column
  • Opinions
    • Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
      Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
    • The block system is a joke
      The block system is a joke
    • Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
      Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
    • Staff Editorial
    • Letters to the Editor
    • The Elephant in the Room
  • Arts
    • Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
      Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
    • Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
      Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
    • “Dash & Lily” Find Love, Stranded
      “Dash & Lily” Find Love, Stranded
    • Arts In The News
    • Reviews
    • Music Peek
  • Health and Wellness
    • No image
      Athletic impacts of Covid-19
    • No image
      A new kind of PE
    • No image
      Maintaining wellness as the cold sets in
    • Athlete of the Week
    • Boston Sports Update
    • The Vegan Digest
    • The SHE Corner
  • Miscellanea
    • No image
      Remote students experience existential crises; change class years in email signatures
    • President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
      President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
    • Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
      Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
    • The Artichoke
    • The Dose
    • The Olive Branch
    • Multimedia
      • Galleries
      • Infographics
      • Videos
By Alexandria Otero OpinionsApril 25, 2018

Justice Gorsuch’s vote showed his disdain for powerful government not immigrant injustice

This past week, the Supreme Court heard Sessions v. Dimaya, an immigration case which determined whether the government could deport immigrants convicted of “crimes of violence.” When the case was heard by the court in January 2017, there was a 4:4 judgement. Therefore, the court decided to re-hear the case once a new justice was appointed to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench. President Trump’s administration was confident that when they appointed conservative Neil Gorsuch to the bench, it would secure a conservative vote for decades to come. However, when Sessions v. Dimaya was reargued this past Tuesday, Gorsuch sided with the liberal judges of the court, breaking the tie in favor of Dimaya. Because of this decision, the Trump administration cannot deport as many people as it had wished to. Given Gorsuch’s decision, many are optimistic about future immigration decisions. However, many legal analysts advise people to take Gorsuch’s decision lightly, and they are right to do so. Although Gorsuch did vote in favor of Dimaya, it wasn’t because he believes in social justice for immigrants — far from it. Rather, Gorsuch voted in line with his belief in limited government power, which can be bad for liberal policies in the long run.

The case of Sessions v. Dimaya involves a Filipino immigrant, James Garcia Dimaya, who has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted of two counts of firstdegree residential burglary. According to the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), any immigrant who is convicted of an aggravated felony which includes a “crime of violence” is deportable. Since Dimaya had two counts of burglary on his record, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to initiate deportation proceedings against him. Dimaya’s lawyers argued that the term “crimes of violence” was too vague and gave immigration courts too much discretion in deciding which crimes fall under that classification.

In the majority opinion for the court, Justice Kagan wrote that the statute did not provide a sufficient explanation for what constitutes a “crime of violence”; therefore, it gave courts too much discretion. She also pointed out that the court had already heard a case with similar facts, Johnson v. United States (2015), in which the classification of a violent crime was unconstitutionally vague and thus struck down. What makes this case especially interesting is the intersection of immigration law — which is technically civil law enforced under the executive branch — and criminal law — which is enforced through the judicial branch. Since immigration law is enforced by the executive branch, it receives little oversight from other branches of government. Therefore, it uses a lot of discretion in enforcement and policy making. Given the amount of unilateral power the executive branch has in immigration enforcement, it is unsurprising that Gorsuch voted the way he did. Instead of participating in the majority opinion, he decided to write a concurring opinion in which he agreed only in part with the majority. In this opinion, he said that he agreed with the vagueness of the statute; however, his reason for his vote had more to do with curtailing executive power than social justice for immigrants.

Gorsuch is known as a hardline conservative on many issues. He considers himself to be a strict constitutionalist, meaning he does not believe that the constitution is open to interpretation. Therefore, he interprets the constitution as the founders would have when they drafted it in 1789. For example, according to a popular legal blog, SCOTUSblog, Judge Gorsuch would vote 100 percent of the time with the most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas. In his previous opinions, he has opposed gay marriage and defended open carry as well as the use of public funds for religious schools. Given his voting record, it is clear that he is not interested in expanding rights for immigrants. Rather, he is more interested in keeping the federal government’s power limited. In the past he has voted to further damage these rights. For example, in a recent court case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Gorsuch voted to allow the detention of immigrants indefinitely without the periodic bail hearings. Given that he voted to limit fifth amendment due process rights for immigrants, he is not concerned with their treatment in our crimmigration system—the intersections between criminal and immigration law. It is possible that he saw the indefinite detention as appropriate because it gave discretion to individual judges about whether or not to release detained immigrants on bail. This example proves that he is more concerned with limiting the power of the government than with immigrant rights.

In his concurring opinion, Gorsuch wrote, “vague laws invite arbitrary power.” He believes that the statute should outline exactly what is considered a crime, which is a view directly in line with his strict approach to constitutional interpretation. In my opinion, Gorsuch couldn’t care less about the conditions of immigrants. While his vote in this case was a victory for immigrant activists, I wouldn’t consider him an ally in the slightest.

Share on

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Google +
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
Previous articleCollege Board shouldn’t push for online SAT testing until it addresses equity problems
Next articleLetter to the Editor

You may also like

A piece of pizza missing topings.

Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?

The block system is a joke

Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls

1 Comment

  • Man with the Axe says:
    April 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM

    The role of the court is not to have sympathy for immigrants. It is to interpret the law and review it for constitutionality. Congress can pass laws that demonstrate as much sympathy for immigrants as they want. The court does not have that authority. It’s not why we have courts.

    If the Supreme Court starts deciding cases based on sympathy instead of on the law and the constitution, it is setting itself up as a super-legislature that gets to decide what laws we all must live by. That makes them tyrants.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

Top Articles

Sorry. No data so far.

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @Wellesley_News

The independent student newspaper of Wellesley College since 1901.

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

  • About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
COPYRIGHT © 2021 THE WELLESLEY NEWS
Back to top