President Trump Wins on Immigration in Front of U.S. Supreme Court | Eastern North Carolina Now

Publisher's note: This post appears here courtesy of the LifeZette, and written by Polizette Staff.

    The conservative 5-4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump another win on immigration Thursday as the court decided that an immigrant with permanent resident status could still be deported due to previous criminal offenses.

    The conservatives ruled that in legislation Congress passed on immigration it included for deportation previous offenses that would render someone not able to immigrate here, as well as those offenses that would make them removable after they got here. Justice Brett Kavanaugh specified that the Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal all concurred, with only the Ninth Circuit taking the opposite view.

    Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members. Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton (the defendant in the case) who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens -even lawful permanent residents-who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress."

    Kavanaugh concluded: "It is entirely ordinary to look beyond the offense of conviction at criminal sentencing, and it is likewise entirely ordinary to look beyond the offense of removal at the cancellation-of-removal stage in immigration cases."

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not agree and wrote for the minority: "Because of the Court's opinion today, noncitizens who were already admitted to the country are treated, for the purposes of the stop-time rule, identically to those who were not-despite Congress' express references to inadmissibility and deportability. The result is that, under the Court's interpretation, an immigration judge may not even consider whether Barton is entitled to cancellation of removal-because of an offense that Congress deemed too trivial to allow for Barton's removal in the first instance."

    This is only one in a string of Trump victories on immigration in cases that have come before the high court. If this majority holds up, the president's immigration pause will likely stand.