How a Recent Supreme Court Ruling May Help Crimmigation Cases
The Supreme Court released an important decision earlier this spring reinforcing an earlier holding that a key sentencing law phrase is unconstitutional. Part of a federal law that is intended to keep people convicted of repeated violent crimes in prison longer was struck down.
In Welch v. United States, the Court declared that a sentencing enhancement applied when a defendant has previously been convicted of a “violent felony” cannot be utilized, regardless of when the conviction occurred.
The Court’s decision stems from a ruling in 2015. In Johnson v. United States, the court held that the ambiguous residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) violates the Due process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. The ACCA allows the court to sentence defendants to longer prison terms if they have three prior convictions for violent felonies. Some misdemeanors also qualify, if they carry a prison term of two or more years.
Under the ACCA, a violent felony is an offense that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” While there is nothing unconstitutionality wrong regarding ambiguous statutes, this definition is “so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standard less that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” This legal principle, known as the void-for-vagueness doctrine, prohibits penalties under statutes where it is impossible to know what activity is targeted.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the decision applies retroactively. Meaning that the residual clause cannot enhance a defendant’s sentence, no matter when the conviction occurred, including before the decision in 2015. Most judicial decisions apply prospectively, changing the law moving forward. In Welch’s case, although the conviction took place in 2010, the Supreme Court ruling must hold true.
The Supreme Court Ruling in Welch and Johnson has potentially substantial implications for crimmigation cases. The residual clause under the ACCA was found unconstitutional for the lack of clarity regarding violent crimes. The statute uses language closely resembling the definition of a crime of violence under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990.
A crime of violence is an aggravated felony that frequently results in the detention and removal of migrants in the United States. However, the reasoning behind the Johnson ruling can be used to attack the constitutionality of the crime of violence basis for deportation.
If you, or a loved one, are facing charges, you need to an experienced crimmigation attorney. Ronald P. Mondello has a successful and growing practice providing criminal defense counsel and their clients with essential advice on the immigration impact of N.J. criminal charges. Call today for a consultation to find out how we can help you.
