Important Implications of Immigration Court Cases
Clark v. Martinez
The Supreme Court decided that extended detention is not authorized if removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. In the case, often paralleled with the Benitez v. Russels case, both Daniel Benitez and Sergio Martinez were ordered to be deported or removed from the United States. However, Cuba refused to accept them, forcing both men into detention for an extended period of time. The Supreme Court decided that the statutes granted by the government to detain inadmissible aliens for longer than 90 days was incorrect.
Leocal V. Ashcroft
A DUI crime does not require the defendant to have intent to commit the crime. The Court determined that, in immigration law, DUI was not considered a "crime of violence." because it does not require proof of a mental state.
Lopez V. Gonzales, Carrillo-Esparza V. United States, Flores-Figueroa V. United States
The implications of these immigration court cases are not unnoticed by immigration law. The need for immigration reform back logged by over 100,000 immigration cases. In a brighter future, both immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens can work together for better working conditions without the fear of unfair deportation. Immigration laws are continually re-interpreted to fit the issues presenting themselves in the United States.
However, to change the broken system of immigration requires reform that promotes economic opportunity, is comprehensive, and looks towards long-term solutions. Without change in immigration litigation and policy, immigration court, immigration law, and immigrants themselves will continue to be affected, regardless of the decisions made by the Supreme Court.
