Lynch v. Dimaya Oral Argument
2017-01-27T22:17:18-05:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvNTFlXC8yMDE3MDEyNzE0NDQwMTAwM19oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Dimaya, which would decide if the definition of a “crime of violence,” as it is used in deportation sections of immigration law, is unconstitutionally vague. The case concerns James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After being convicted in California of burglary in both 2007 and 2009, the government began deportation proceedings. The Homeland Security Department determined that his convictions were “crimes of violence” making him eligible for deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act for having committed aggravated felonies.
The case was renamed Sessions v. Dimaya when former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the named petitioner, was replaced by Jeff Sessions upon his confirmation.
On June 26, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts announced this case would be re-argued in the 2017-2018 term.
The case was renamed Sessions v. Dimaya when former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the named petitioner, was replaced by Jeff Sessions upon his confirmation.
On June 26, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts announced this case would be re-argued in the 2017-2018 term.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Dimaya, which would decide if the definition of a “crime of violence,” as it is used in de… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Dimaya, which would decide if the definition of a “crime of violence,” as it is used in deportation sections of immigration law, is unconstitutionally vague. The case concerns James Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who came to the United States legally as a 13-year-old in 1992. After being convicted in California of burglary in both 2007 and 2009, the government began deportation proceedings. The Homeland Security Department determined that his convictions were “crimes of violence” making him eligible for deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act for having committed aggravated felonies.
The case was renamed Sessions v. Dimaya when former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the named petitioner, was replaced by Jeff Sessions upon his confirmation.
On June 26, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts announced this case would be re-argued in the 2017-2018 term. close
People in this video
-
-
-
-
-
-
Joshua Rosenkranz Attorney
-
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Lynch v. Dimaya Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
Nelson v. Colorado Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nelson v. Colorado, a case questioning Colorado’s practice of not refunding cou…
-
Sessions v. Morales-Santana Oral Argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana, a case testing the constitutionality of an immig…
-
Maslenjak v. United States Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Maslenjak v. United States, a case on whether the government can strip naturali…
-
Buck v. Davis Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Buck v. Davis, docket number 15-8049. The case concerns whether Duane Buck can …
User Created Clips from This Video
-
- 59 minutes
- 22 views