Supreme Court Argument Preview: The void-for-vagueness doctrine applied to the U.S. immigration laws — Lynch v. Dimaya
Here is my preview of the oral argument in the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Dimaya. The oral argument is on January 17. In that case, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, held that 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing removal, is unconstitutionally vague. My conclusion:
“In recent years, the Roberts Court has moved immigration law into the legal mainstream, employing generally applicable principles of statutory construction and administrative law when adjudicating immigration-law cases. However, the court has been slow to apply the Constitution to judicial review of the substantive admission, removal and citizenship provisions of the immigration laws. Several cases before the court this term raise constitutional challenges to the immigration and nationality laws. Lynch v. Morales-Santana involves the constitutionality of the immigration law’s distinctions between mothers and fathers in bestowing citizenship on children born out of wedlock. In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the challenge to immigrant detention, the court in December asked for supplemental briefing on the constitutional issues raised by the case. This term’s decisions in this trio of cases may help clarify the place of the Constitution in judicial review of cases arising under the immigration laws.”
KJ