Pubdate: Wed, 04 Oct 2006
Source: Charlotte Observer (NC)
Copyright: 2006 The Charlotte Observer
Contact:  http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/78
Author: Mark Sherman, Associated Press

First Case Of New Supreme Court Term

IMMIGRATION CASE LOOKS AT DEPORTABLE OFFENSES

Justices Hear Arguments Over How State, Federal Laws Conflict On Severity

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices wrestled Tuesday with the 
question of whether convictions for minor crimes should force 
immigrants' deportation, the first case in a term expected to make 
clearer the court's direction under Chief Justice John Roberts.

Thousands of immigrants who have run afoul of the law, some for 
possessing small amounts of drugs, could be affected by the court's ruling.

The second year of Roberts' tenure began with little drama, just a 
brief welcome to visiting jurists from India.

Eight justices, all but the habitually quiet Clarence Thomas, took 
part in questioning lawyers from both sides as the Bush 
administration asserted immigrants convicted of state drug felonies 
are deportable even if the same crimes are considered misdemeanors 
under federal law.

Jose Antonio Lopez, of Sioux Falls, S.D., was ordered deported after 
he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession of cocaine. The 
crime is a felony under South Dakota state law, but a misdemeanor 
under the federal Controlled Substances Act if it is a first offense 
for cocaine possession, as in Lopez' case.

"The problem here is that state law and federal law are at odds in 
determining the gravity of the offense," Justice David Souter said.

Several justices said they were troubled that immigration authorities 
would treat differently two people who commit the same crime in 
different states that hand out different penalties. Federal appeals 
courts have split over interpreting the immigration law at issue in the case.

An immigration judge and review panel as well as a federal appeals 
court all concluded that Lopez' crime should be considered an 
aggravated felony, which severely limits immigrants' ability to fight 
off deportation, be granted asylum or become naturalized U.S. citizens.

Lopez, a 16-year permanent U.S. resident, already has been deported 
to Mexico, but could return to his wife and two children, who are 
U.S. citizens, if the court rules in his favor, said Benita Jain, a 
staff attorney with the New York State Defenders Association.

Lopez still could face deportation, but an immigration judge would 
have discretion to allow him to remain in the U.S.

Justices were more skeptical of the claims of another immigrant, 
whose case was considered along with Lopez'. Reymundo Toledo-Flores, 
a Mexican national, is objecting to having his latest conviction for 
illegally entering the United States classified an aggravated felony.

Since he is contesting his prison term, not deportation, justices 
wondered why they should deal with Toledo-Flores' case now that he 
has served his sentence and been returned to Mexico.

Tuesday was the first time the court has released same-day 
transcripts of oral argument on its Web site, supremecourtus.gov, 
under a new policy announced last month, the Washington Post reported.

The consolidated immigration case is Lopez v. Gonzales, 05-547, 
Toledo-Flores v. United States, 05-7664. AP Writer Pete Yost and the 
Washington Post contributed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine