HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SCOTUS rules 9-0 against ...

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:03 PM

SCOTUS rules 9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1990s, were


?s=21


?s=21

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
SCOTUS rules 9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1990s, were allowed to remain in the country for humanitarian reasons under the "temporary protected status" program, and now seek green cards under the "adjustment of status" process


SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
·
Jun 7, 2021
Replying to @SCOTUSblog
In plain English: A married couple entered the U.S. from El Salvador. They're protected from deportation under a program in which the U.S. doesn't send people back to nations in crisis. The couple applied to become lawful permanent U.S. residents. SCOTUS said they don't qualify.

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
Here is the opinion in Sanchez v. Mayorkas: https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf

21 replies, 2348 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply SCOTUS rules 9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1990s, were (Original post)
soothsayer Jun 2021 OP
underpants Jun 2021 #1
soothsayer Jun 2021 #2
underpants Jun 2021 #4
FBaggins Jun 2021 #5
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2021 #10
Klaralven Jun 2021 #3
elleng Jun 2021 #7
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #6
gladium et scutum Jun 2021 #8
FBaggins Jun 2021 #17
gladium et scutum Jun 2021 #20
Zeitghost Jun 2021 #11
MichMan Jun 2021 #15
oldsoftie Jun 2021 #21
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #18
Calista241 Jun 2021 #12
Hortensis Jun 2021 #13
StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #16
FBaggins Jun 2021 #19
WhiskeyGrinder Jun 2021 #9
ScratchCat Jun 2021 #14

Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:09 PM

1. Two posts, two drastically different headlines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:12 PM

2. Breaking news vs gd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:14 PM

4. I just don't know what the ruling was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:18 PM

5. They look the same to me

They both mean that temporary protected status does not count as a legal “entry” into the country for purposes of obtaining a green card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:41 PM

10. They look the same to me

"Supreme Court rules against immigrants with temporary status"
"SCOTUS rules 9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization in the 1990s, were"
Neither seems to have been edited. What's the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:13 PM

3. From the Syllabus

 

Held: A TPS recipient who entered the United States unlawfully is not
eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely by dint of his TPS. Section
1255 provides that eligibility for LPR status generally requires an “admission”
into the country— defined to mean “the lawful entry of the
alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an
immigration officer.” §1101(a)(13)(A). Sanchez did not enter lawfully.
And his TPS does not eliminate the effect of that unlawful entry.
Section 1254a(f)(4) provides that a TPS recipient who applies for permanent
residency will be treated as having nonimmigrant status—the
status traditionally and generally needed to invoke the LPR process
under §1255. But that provision does not aid the TPS recipient in
meeting §1255’s separate admission requirement. Lawful status and
admission are distinct concepts in immigration law, and establishing
the former does not establish the latter. Sanchez resists this conclusion,
arguing that the statute’s directive that a TPS recipient “shall be
considered . . . as a nonimmigrant” for purposes of §1255 means he
must also be considered as admitted. But the immigration laws nowhere
state that admission is a prerequisite of nonimmigrant status.
So there is no reason to interpret the TPS provision’s conferral of
nonimmigrant status as including a conferral of admission. In fact,
contrary to Sanchez’s position, there are immigration categories in
which individuals have nonimmigrant status without admission. See,
e.g., §§1101(a)(10), 1101(a)(15)(U), 1182(d)(14). Thus, when Congress
confers nonimmigrant status for purposes of §1255, but says nothing
about admission, the Court has no basis for ruling an unlawful entrant
eligible to become an LPR. Pp. 4–9.

967 F. 3d 242, affirmed.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Klaralven (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:24 PM

7. Heckuva complex syllabus!

Gotta trust the decision written by Justice Kagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:19 PM

6. 9-0 is a rarity

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:26 PM

8. According to the Washington Post

about 1/3rd of all SCOTUS decisions are unanimous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gladium et scutum (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:05 PM

17. That's just last OT - it's usually higher.

Most years it's over 40%. OT13 was about 2/3.

StarfishSaver may have been thinking of the different types of 9-0 rulings (agreeing in just the judgment vs. total agreement).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 02:42 PM

20. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:41 PM

11. Not really..

In fact it's fairly common. Although most of the divisive media wouldn't tell you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:02 PM

15. Posters here will still argue that every upcoming SC decision will be decided along partisan lines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 03:13 PM

21. You will be proven right!

The facts show that its not the case, but some people here dont like some facts.

More decisions than people think are 9-0, 7-2 & 8-1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:06 PM

18. I should have been more specific

 

They are more common in routine cases and procedural rulings. But they are rare when it comes to substantive interpretations of law such as this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:47 PM

12. They had something like 5 opinions in a row last month that were all unanimous.

The computer crimes opinion last week broke the streak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:47 PM

13. I assume 9-0 to mean agreement on a compelling legal or practical issue.

With the court so divided, a 9-0 decision on a big underlying ideological issue would be rare all right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:04 PM

16. Yes

 

I'm not talking about routine cases or procedural rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:17 PM

19. I'd argue that this one is fairly routine too

Oral arguments were pretty dry. Only one justice even brought up the many tens of thousands of people that would be impacted.

IMO - Once it was clear that Chevron was in no danger... the case ceased to carry much weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 12:28 PM

9. Ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Original post)

Mon Jun 7, 2021, 01:00 PM

14. The crux:

Lawful status and admission are distinct concepts in immigration law, and establishing the former does not establish the latter.

It came down to a pretty simple legal concept that all agreed upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread