You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters
RSS

Law Alerts!

United States Supreme Court Strikes Down 18 USC §16(b) (Residual Clause) as Void for Vagueness

The United States Supreme Court issued an important ruling upholding a vagueness challenge to the manner in which courts have determined whether a state criminal conviction constitutes a crime of violence and is thus an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. See Sessions v Dimaya (Apr. 17, 2018, No. 15-1498) 2018 US Lexis 2497.

An “aggravated felony” is a conviction that makes an alien deportable as well as ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation. 8 USC §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The definition of an aggravated felony includes, among other things, “a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.” §1101(a)(43)(F). The term “crime of violence” is defined by 18 USC §16 in two ways: (1) the elements clause (involving the use of physical force as an element of the offense); and (2) the residual clause (a felony involving a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the course of committing the offense). In Dimaya, the court had to determine whether the petitioner’s California residential burglary was a crime of violence under the residual clause and thus an aggravated felony, leading to deportability.

Previous analysis had espoused a categorical approach based neither on an elements test nor a particular facts test, but rather on consideration of whether, when that offense is prosecuted, the “ordinary case” necessarily involves the substantial risk of physical force being used. The Ninth Circuit upheld petitioner’s challenge that the “ordinary case” analysis depended too heavily on speculation and was thus unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court affirmed. In Johnson v United States (2015) ___ US ___,  135 S Ct 2551, the court had rejected nearly identical language in the definition of "violent felony" in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) as also unconstitutionally vague. In Johnson, the residual clause was held to offer no reliable way to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looked like. As the court put it, “combining indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime with indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony […] violates the guarantee of due process.” Dimaya, at *8, citing Johnson. A fact-based test was not an viable option, because it would have a sentencing court invade the province of the jury as fact-finder. See Descamps v United States (2013) 570 US 254, 267, 133 S Ct 2276. Thus, the approach used by immigration courts that relies on the elements clause (§16(a)) remains in place and the residual clause (§16(b)) is unconstitutional.

For further discussion, see CEB's California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, chapter 52, and California Criminal Defense of Immigrants, chapter 6.

Highlights of the newly enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Here's a handy break-down of the most significant changes in the new tax legislation
Seventh Circuit Holds that Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation Is a Form of Sex Discrimination Under Title VII
In this landmark en banc decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals expands the scope of conduct encompassed within Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination. The decision may provide the US Supreme Court an opportunity to make a definitive statement on this issue.
Exception to No-Impeachment Rule Permits Inquiry Into Jury Deliberations in Criminal Cases
The United States Supreme Court has held that, when there is clear evidence that a juror relied on racial bias to convict a defendant, a trial court may set aside the no-impeachment rule and inquire into the jury’s deliberations to determine whether the defendant was denied his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Employers Beware: New Local Paid Sick Leave Ordinances Complicate Compliance
Cities have begun passing their own paid sick leave ordinances. Employers with employees working in any of these cities must ensure compliance with California's paid sick leave law and with any applicable local ordinance.
New Labor Code §925 Mandates California Choice of Law and Forum Selection in Employment Agreements
Effective January 1, 2017, agreements with employees who are California residents and who work in California will be subject to the limitations on choice of law and forum selection in new Labor Code §925.
DOL Regulations Mandate Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has promulgated regulations implementing Executive Order 13706, signed by President Obama on September 7, 2015, mandating that employers that contract with the federal government provide paid sick leave to their employees, including paid leave for family care.
Supreme Court Permits Nonresident Plaintiffs to Sue Nonresident Pharmaceutical Company in California
The California Supreme Court has determined that, consistent with the requirements of due process, California courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to adjudicate the tort claims of nonresident plaintiffs.
California Becomes Fifth State to Allow Physicians to Prescribe Aid-in-Dying Drugs to Terminally Ill Patients
With the enactment of the End of Life Option Act (Health & S C §§443–443.22), effective June 9, 2016, California becomes the fifth state in the nation to allow physicians to prescribe medications to end of the lives of terminally ill patients.
Final DOL Rule Expands Number of Exempt Employees Entitled to Overtime Pay
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a final rule that will expand the number of exempt employees entitled to claim overtime pay. The rule's provisions will go into effect on December 1, 2016.