Retroactive Relief Loses Again at the Supreme Court

[rangerrebew]

   Retroactive Relief Loses Again at the Supreme Court
By Dan McLaughlin

May 24, 2021 12:06 PM
 
This morning’s unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, illustrates for the second time in a week the difficulty of getting the Court to apply new rules retroactively to help criminal defendants who should never have been in this position if the rule was decided in their favor in the first place. The case is a symptom both of the extended Whac-a-Mole game of deportation and immigrant reentry, but also how harsh immigration law is in practice for those who get into its grip. A Mexican immigrant with lawful permanent resident status was convicted of a DUI in 1991 and deported in 1998 on the basis of his conviction of a deportable crime. He reentered the country, and the immigration authorities located him in 2017 and criminally prosecuted him for illegal reentry. But in 2004, the Supreme Court determined (in another case) that the crime he was convicted of was never a proper ground for deportation. Was Palomar-Santiago guilty of illegally reentering after deportation, or innocent because he reentered after an improper deportation?

In Edwards v. Vannoy, the Court was to some extent on its own in deciding whether its constitutional criminal-procedure decisions applied retroactively to defendants whose time to appeal had run out and were going back to refight their convictions under the new rules. The Constitution is silent on the retroactivity question, and the Justices are divided on the proper source of tradition — or the habeas corpus statute — that authorized them to make decisions retroactive, or not. In Palomar-Santiago, however, even Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the retroactivity question in the immigration context depends on how Congress wrote the statute — in this case, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The brief eight-page decision, joined in its entirety without additional comment from any Justice, indicates that the Court thought that the answer provided by the AEDPA was clear and should not have been disregarded by the Ninth Circuit:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/retroactive-relief-loses-again-at-the-supreme-court/

[Hoodat]

The Constitution is silent on the retroactivity question

Uh, no.  The Constitution is quite clear on retroactivity.  Hope the verdict in this case extends to the unconstitutional retroactive waiver on income taxes due on unemployment benefits that occurred last March.

[rangerrebew]

illustrates for the second time in a week the difficulty of getting the Court to apply new rules retroactively to help criminal defendants who should never have been in this position if the rule was decided in their favor in the first place. 

Has this author never studied the Constitution?  Did he finish high school?  He couldn't have and be so stupid.  This crap for brains thinks the Supreme Court has it within their powers to make new "rules" (laws) and to do it retroactively.  That isn't what the Constitution says.  I know the court has done this in the past but that still doesn't make it right.  But for authors to start openly claiming the court she bypass  the Constitution and do whatever the hell they want doesn't sit well with me.

[Sled Dog]

Uh, no.  The Constitution is quite clear on retroactivity.  Hope the verdict in this case extends to the unconstitutional retroactive waiver on income taxes due on unemployment benefits that occurred last March.

Well, the Constitution is clear on ex post facto laws, the making of an act criminal after the act.   Not so much on making an act not illegal after someone broke the law when the act was illegal.

The Constitution is REALLY DAMN CLEAR that the Congress, not the courts, have sole jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization, though.   And deporting undesirables has a long tradition in the US, which is how we used to remove gangsters and...drunk drivers.   If any court decided that a DUI is not a valid reason to deport dirt from the US, that court is exceeding it's authority.