Sessions v. Dimaya Oral Argument
2017-10-13T17:06:02-04:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvNWFiXC8yMDE3MTAxMzE3MDYzMjAwM19oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Sessions v. Dimaya, a re-argument from the previous term when there were only eight justices, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The case focuses on immigration law. James Dimaya came to the U.S. as a teen in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. Through his adult years he had run-ins with the law and later pleaded no contest to residential burglary charges. In 2010, the Homeland Security Department used the convictions against him, calling them violent crimes, and began the removal proceedings. At issue was whether a “crime of violence” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for deportation proceedings is unconstitutionally vague.
On April 17, 2018, the Court ruled 5-4 that the definition of a “crime of violence” used in deportation sections of immigration law is unconstitutionally vague. Justice Gorsuch, who replaced Justice Scalia, joined the majority of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor
On April 17, 2018, the Court ruled 5-4 that the definition of a “crime of violence” used in deportation sections of immigration law is unconstitutionally vague. Justice Gorsuch, who replaced Justice Scalia, joined the majority of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Sessions v. Dimaya, a re-argument from the previous term when there were only eight justices, due to the death of Justice… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Sessions v. Dimaya, a re-argument from the previous term when there were only eight justices, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The case focuses on immigration law. James Dimaya came to the U.S. as a teen in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. Through his adult years he had run-ins with the law and later pleaded no contest to residential burglary charges. In 2010, the Homeland Security Department used the convictions against him, calling them violent crimes, and began the removal proceedings. At issue was whether a “crime of violence” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for deportation proceedings is unconstitutionally vague.
On April 17, 2018, the Court ruled 5-4 that the definition of a “crime of violence” used in deportation sections of immigration law is unconstitutionally vague. Justice Gorsuch, who replaced Justice Scalia, joined the majority of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor close
People in this video
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Joshua Rosenkranz Attorney
-
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Sessions v. Dimaya Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $4.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
Gill v. Whitford Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Gill v. Whitford, a case involving redistricting in Wisconsin. A lower court in 2016…
-
Jennings v. Rodriguez Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Jennings v. Rodriguez, a re-argument from the previous term when there were…
-
District of Columbia v. Websy Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in District of Columbia v. Wesby, a case concerning the Fourth Amendment and…
-
Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31…