Supreme Court Rules Obstruction of Justice as Grounds for Deportation
Offenses that involve obstruction of justice are now considered additional grounds for deportation of an immigrant, as determined by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling.
“We have concluded that an offense may ‘relate to obstruction of justice’ […] even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending,” stated Judge Brett Kavanaugh in his opinion.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson also provided additional support for this opinion, referencing a case decided by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
“I agree with the Court that the Ninth Circuit erroneously imposed a pending procedural requirement when determining which prior offenses qualify as ‘offenses related to obstruction of justice,’” stated Judge Jackson.
In his opinion, supported by a majority of six votes to three, Judge Jackson even expands on the fact that there is no requirement for a police investigation related to the pending obstruction of justice case.
“This means, of course, that I also agree with the Court’s conclusion that the Fourth Circuit correctly rejected any procedural requirements [policiaco o judicial] pending,” he added.
Judge Jackson acknowledges that this specific reason for deportation is not explicitly stated in the Immigration and Citizenship Law (INA), but argues that obstruction of justice should be considered an “aggravated crime”.
The Supreme Court recognized the need for Congress to review the INA regarding “aggravated felonies” that can lead to deportation.
The Court’s decision was made in two separate immigration cases involving Fernando Cordero-Garcia and Jean Francois Pugin, both of whom now face potential deportation due to serious accusations of obstructing justice.
Cordero-García was convicted in 2009 of various crimes in California, including dissuading a witness from reporting a crime.
In 2014, Jean Francois Pugin, a citizen of the Mauritius Islands (Africa), was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a felony.
Judge Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion
Judge Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the Court’s decision and provided a dissenting opinion.
According to Judge Sotomayor, the crimes listed in the immigration law as “serious” and triggering the deportation process are clearly defined, while “generic” crimes like obstruction of justice are not explicitly mentioned.
She argued that the requirement of a pending investigation or process is crucial when accusing someone of “obstructing justice.”
“By defining crimes that do not require a pending investigation or prosecution as core obstruction of justice, most [of the judges] force the conclusion that a pending investigation or process is not necessary to qualify as generic obstruction of justice,” criticized Sotomayor.
Sign up to receive our free newsletter in your email.
See article in La Opinión
Microsoft and its partners may receive compensation if you purchase something through the recommended links on this page.
The Supreme Court has ruled that obstruction of justice is now considered grounds for deportation of an immigrant. In a recent ruling, Judge Brett Kavanaugh stated that an offense can be related to obstruction of justice even if it does not require an investigation or proceeding to be pending. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson also supported this opinion, stating that a prior offense can qualify as an offense related to obstruction of justice without a pending procedural requirement. The ruling, supported by a majority of six votes to three, expands on the fact that there is no requirement for a police investigation related to the pending obstruction of justice case.
How does the recent Supreme Court ruling on obstruction of justice impact immigrant populations in the US?
I can provide some insights into how a recent Supreme Court ruling on obstruction of justice may impact immigrant populations in the US. However, I should note that I don’t have access to real-time information and the specific details of the ruling are necessary to provide a more accurate analysis. Nevertheless, I can offer a general perspective.
If the recent Supreme Court ruling on obstruction of justice involves immigration-related issues, it could have implications for immigrant populations in the US. Depending on the specifics of the ruling, it may affect individuals or groups involved in obstructing justice related to immigration matters, such as interfering with immigration enforcement or tampering with evidence.
Potential consequences could include increased scrutiny, enforcement, or penalties against those who obstruct justice in immigration cases. These measures might aim to safeguard the integrity of immigration processes and address any potential challenges caused by obstruction or interference.
Additionally, the ruling may impact the perception of obstruction of justice within immigrant communities. It could create awareness about the potential legal consequences of obstructing justice related to immigration matters. However, the extent of its impact on immigrant populations would largely depend on the scope and context of the ruling.
To fully understand the implications of the specific Supreme Court ruling on obstruction of justice, it would be essential to refer to the details and context of the case.
This landmark decision by the Supreme Court sets a crucial precedent in recognizing obstruction of justice as a valid reason for deportation. It will undoubtedly have profound implications for immigration cases, upholding the integrity of our legal system and protecting the rule of law.