Home Page

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books



VIP Lawyer Network


High Net Worth

Dubai Events

Campus Events

Overseas Events




Connect to us


Make us Homepage



ilw.com VIP

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: Immigration Again Center-Stage During Supreme Court's 2012 Term by Adam Francoeur, Esq.

    Immigration Again Center-Stage During Supreme Court's 2012 Term

    by Adam Francoeur, Esq.

    The Supreme Court began its 2012 term this week coming off of a controversial year in which the Court played a central role in the ongoing effort to determine the parameters of U.S. immigration policy and the extent of federal authority.  In the Court’s fall session, the Justices will again delve into immigration law in two cases that deal with the consequences of criminal convictions for non-citizens.

    First up before the Court is Moncrieffe v. Holder in which the Court will decide whether a conviction under a provision of state law that encompasses, but is not limited to, the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration constitutes an aggravated felony subjecting the non-citizen to removal from the U.S., notwithstanding that the non-citizen was convicted of possessing such a small amount of marijuana that it would qualify as a misdemeanor under federal law rather than as a felony.

    Shortly thereafter the Court will shift its attention to Chaidez v. U.S. to decide just how expansively to read its prior decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation.  The scope of the question presented in Chaidez is whether Padilla applies retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before its Padilla ruling.

    Finally, while not yet on the docket, many Court watchers anticipate the Court will take up the question of the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which has a strong immigration component as currently written—DOMA prevents many same-sex couples from availing themselves of family unification immigration benefits.  Stay tuned for an exciting term and future updates.

    About The Author

    Adam Francoeur represents clients in all areas of U.S. immigration law. Mr. Francoeur previously served as a staff attorney at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he recommended judicial disposition to the judges on complex immigration issues such as relief from removal, federal civil procedure, and appellate procedure. In addition, Mr. Francoeur has experience advising corporate clients on immigration compliance issues.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: