It’s already been a very productive week for the US Supreme Court, and a surprisingly level-headed one.
The three issues of note are the following:
SLIGHTLY SANER DEPORTATION RULES IN MINOR DRUG CASES
Since 1996, the US has been merrily deporting permanent legal residents for minor drug convictions. This week SCOTUS ruled unanimously against such deportations for offenses that are ” at odds with the ordinary meaning of ‘aggravated felony.'”
Here’s a clip from what Adam Liptak wrote for the NY Times:
Lower courts had said that Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a permanent resident of the United States who had lived here since 1983, when he was 5, was subject to mandatory deportation for a second drug offense, this one involving possession of single tablet of a prescription drug.
The question in the case was whether that second offense amounted to an “aggravated felony.” If it did, the government had no choice but to deport him under the immigration laws. If it did not, the attorney general had the discretion to show leniency.
In 2004, Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo was sentenced by a Texas state court judge to 20 days in jail for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana. The next year, he was sentenced to 10 days in jail for having a single tablet of Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, without a prescription.
Those were both misdemeanors under state law. But federal authorities argued that a second drug offense counted as an aggravated felony under federal law, making Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation.
David Savage of the LA Times explained the underlying issue well:
[Carachuri-Rosendo’s] case illustrated the potentially harsh effect of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously, immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.
The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony. But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.
Finally, a small shred of sanity on this repeatedly abused and abusive law.
SUPREMES EASE FILING RESTRICTIONS IN SOME DEATH PENALTY CASES
Michael Doyle for McClatchy has the details of how the court gave a second chance to a Florida death row inmate whose incompetent jerk of a lawyer failed to research the deadlines for filing Habeas appeals so missed his client’s. (It probably didn’t help that the lawyer managed to avoid even contacting his client for three full years):
The court’s 7-2 ruling means that convicted cop killer Albert Holland will have another opportunity to make his case. The decision opens the door for other inmates who can show they’ve missed deadlines because of their lawyers’ “egregious” mistakes.
“In this case, the (lawyer’s) failure seriously prejudiced a client who thereby lost what was likely his single opportunity for federal habeas (corpus) review of the lawfulness of his imprisonment and of his death sentence,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote.
JUSTICES AGREE TO HEAR CALIFORNIA’S PRISON OVERCROWDING CASE
This case won’t go forward until the fall, but it is big news that the Supremes have agreed to hear the matter of whether or not the federal three judge panel that has ruled California must reduce its prison population by 46 thousand people, can really make that ruling legally.
Here’s some of what Denny Walsh of the Sac’to Bee reports:
After earlier deciding that overcrowding is the primary cause of health care that is so bad it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, a special three-judge panel in January ordered the inmate population of the state’s 33 adult prisons slashed by roughly 40,000 within two years.
The panel stayed its order pending the Schwarzenegger administration’s appeal, which was joined by a group of Republican lawmakers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and corrections Secretary Matthew Cate acknowledge the prisons are jammed well beyond their intended capacity. But, they insist, health care has improved and is no longer unconstitutional, population reduction can be achieved in a slower and more orderly fashion so as not to put citizens at risk, and the three judges lack authority to impose their will on the state.
It will be the high court’s first look at such a panel’s power under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to cure a constitutional violation by whatever means it deems necessary.
Yeah, well, while we’re at it, how to we go about getting one of those handy-dandy three judge panels to apply a little “whatever means necessary” to our probation mess?
The judges having made their decisin based on outdated numbers of course was OK right Celeste?
The decision was total b.s.
“This case won’t go forward until the fall, but it is big news that the Supremes have agreed to hear the matter of whether or not the federal three judge panel that has ruled California must reduce its prison population by 46 million people”
*********************************
I didn’t know everybody but me was in prison.
Yikes. Okay, that’s a pretty impressive mistake. Thanks WTF. I changed it. (Must be some sort of Freudian thingy on my part.)
SF, don’t know which one you’re referring to.
Ah, Texas. Forcing a test case on whether legal immigrants who just aren’t citizens can be deported to their home countries for an aggravated felony, where a guy, Carachuri-Rosendo, got busted for a couple of joints and then one measly Xanax pill (both apparently for personal relaxation), and was brought to this country at the age of 4 albeit by illegal immigrants, is ordered “home.” By prosecuting such minor drug offenses which anywhere else sane would/should be misdemeanors absent proof the guy was pushing, it’s now murkier than ever whether someone who really IS busted for repeat aggravated felonies like armed assault/robbery, can be deported from this country at all.
As for the California prison case, while it may be useful for the court to make a strong point that it’s inhumane to incarcerate people in such circumstances, including those who should be in rahab or psychiatric care, to simply order the release of so many willy-nilly is an unfunded mandate – especially when, as many point out, a large number of the prisoners (anywhere from 1/5 to 1/6 statewide to 1/4 or more in L A County) are here illegally and often repeat offenders who ccme back after deportation, a federal problem, yet we’re as Arnold-Antonovich keep pointing out, paying more to D. C. than we’re getting back in taxes.
However, it’s also conservatives who are most opposed to releasing least violent-likely to re-offend prisoners like even those who are comatose or incapacitated, which costs an absurd amount that could be used to keep truly dangerous prisoners in prison. The mandate to release should be tied to some priority system. Which should ALSO INCLUDE, not throwing a bunch of medical pot patients, dispensary owners with no criminal records, or 2-oz. potheads INTO prison as felons to further the ambitions of Cooley or whomever.
California presented to the panel updated numbers showing the progress made in the prison health care system. The panel refused to look at them, they relied on outdated information.
The panel is not looking for the truth, these jurists have their own agenda and it’s beneath their position to act in the manner they have. I’ve posted the facts here on other threads, none of that has changed.
What really drives me a bit crazy is the concern of people, like you and other liberals Celeste, who are all upset about an issue like this. By and large our prison population didn’t care one bit about their health prior to geting to the joint but once they get there they demand the best of care and they want it now. They go in with years of neglecting their own health and the taxpayers have to foot the bill to make them all better. That doesn’t even count any cost of health care for the victims they leasve in their wake.
I will not shed one tear or lose one mnute of sleep caring about these assholes who are helping break the bank in our state.