A Sign of Hope?

We have become accustomed to expecting the increased politicization of the Supreme Court. With six conservative Justices and three liberal Justices, decisions made along predictable lines are less and less of a surprise.

When the Court, however, ruled six/three in favor of an immigrant in danger of being deported, there was cause for surprise. The conservative block of Justices was split. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the Court’s three liberal Justices. In dissent were conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

The case focused on the plight of Augusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan immigrant who entered the US illegally in 2005. One requirement of immigrants is that they must show they have lived in the United States at least ten years before applying legally for citizenship. On the surface Niz-Chavez met the requirements.

The argument that Niz-Chavez did not receive adequate notice of his deportation hearing was the heart of the case. The government sent a notice to Niz-Chavez in 2013. If it was deemed lawful, it would have stopped the clock ticking on his ten year residency locking it at eight years which is below the required ten years.

A technicality turned the court in favor of Niz-Chavez. In an article in The Hill John Kruzel wrote, “Specifically, the majority found… that federal officials must provide comprehensive notice of upcoming deportation hearings in a single document. The government’s failure to comply strictly with the requirement meant he had not been properly notified. At issue is the fact that Niz-Chavez received multiple letters, each with a portion of the information about his possible deportation.”

It is a decision that has huge implications for thousands of immigrants who have met the ten-year threshold but have received multiple documents giving portions of information about deportation. This decision allows them to legally apply for citizenship in the United States.

It is a hopeful sign that the Court did not split along predictable lines. It demonstrates that the High Court is able to think independently. This is no small thing when the Court is stacked with six conservative Justices and three liberal Justices. For the law to be evenly applied there must be equality of positions before the Court. The capacity to make decisions without undue influence from outside conservative or liberal influences is of utmost importance.

One of the concerns with the current composition of the court is how personal values and beliefs influence their decisions. During the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, her conservative Catholic practices were of concern, particularly in relation to pro-choice issues. That she was able to think outside her conservative box gives some hope about the future of the court.

Many of the Court’s decisions go beyond the law and ask questions of moral import. How to treat immigrants justly is one of those questions. The law that was clarified in this decision is one such example of how Supreme Court decisions have moral implications.

The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 created the ten-year requirement for applying for legal status. A problem is that illegal immigrants who leave the country after ten years for any reason are not allowed to re-enter, even if an otherwise legal path to citizenship exists.  It leads to people staying in the US unlawfully for long periods of time and risking detection rather than uprooting their lives and being separated from their families (who are legal citizens) permanently.

The Court’s ruling last week can be viewed as a first step toward correcting the limitations of the 1996 law and creating more reasonable sanctions for those staying in the country illegally. Reforming the ten-year requirement for a legal path to citizenship could allow millions of undocumented immigrants to apply using the legal system. Codifying how notices for potential deportation are delivered is crucial. Specifying ways that those who have been here illegally for years can become legal residents levels the playing field in a system that is beyond broken, overworked, understaffed and underfunded.

It’s a small step, but it’s a start. Thanks to the Supreme Court for moving in the right direction. Keep up the good work.