Supreme Court Immigration News

These two recent Supreme Court actions in immigration cases may not have had huge impacts.  However, many immigration folks might be interested nonetheless.

MOUELLE V. GONZALES, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4899; 74 U.S.L.W. 3720 (June 26, 2006) Decided PRIOR HISTORY: Mouelle v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 923, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15581 (8th Cir., 2005).  Here is the full opinion:

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of 71 Fed. Reg. 27,585.

***

This was an adjustment of status case that saw an intervening change in regulations.  The question presented was whether, under the applicable regulation, arriving aliens in removal proceedings, including those arriving on advance parole, are ineligible for adjustment of status under INA § 245.

****

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES v. WILLIAMS, 126 S. Ct. 2016; 164 L. Ed. 2d 776; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4507; 74 U.S.L.W. 4290 (June 5, 2006).

PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Williams v. Mohawk Indus., 411 F.3d 1252, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10710 (11th Cir. Ga., 2005).  Here is the per curiam opinion:

The writ of certiorari limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, granted at 546 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 830, 163 L. Ed. 2d 705 (2005), is dismissed as improvidently granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., ante, p. ___, 126 S. Ct. 713, 163 L. Ed. 2d 56. It is so ordered.

***

The case arose from a suit by Mohawk employees in 2004, claiming the company had wrongly conspired with employee recruiters to secure thousands of illegal immigrants for jobs expressly to keep down wages. The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that held that the carpet company could be sued by its American workers under a federal racketeering law for hiring illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court’s single-paragraph ruling did not address the facts of the Mohawk case.  It merely said the appeals court, which had allowed the claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), should reconsider its judgment in light of another ruling the high court issued at the same time on a different RICO complaint.  In that case (Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.), the Court tightened up on the requirements for a RICO claim, which will make the employees’ RICO claims in Mohawk more difficult to pursue.

In my estimation, this case is just another example of the misuse of the federal racketeering statute, which at its heart was designed to deal with organized crime.

KJ