Supreme Court Justices Again Unanimous Twice in the Same Day

[Calista241]

Source: Law and Crime

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down two unanimous decisions Monday — making the total a whopping four 9-0 decisions in a week’s time.

The first opinion released by SCOTUS on this morning was United States v. Palomar-Santiago, an immigration decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in which the full court sided with the government and against the immigrant.

The unanimous court ruled against the Mexican national Refugio Palomar-Santiago, who was charged with criminal re-entry into the United States. Palomar-Santiago became a permanent U.S. resident in 1990, was deported in 1998, and was found living again in the U.S. in 2017. As a result of being found unlawfully on American soil, Palomar-Santiago was prosecuted for criminal re-entry.

...

Next, in Territory of Guam v. United States, the justices ruled in favor of Guam, allowing the island to pursue the collection of funding from the U.S. government to remediate environmental pollution on the island.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-justices-again-unanimous-twice-in-the-same-day/

[elleng]

1. 'in favor of Guam, allowing the island to pursue the collection of funding from the U.S

government to remediate environmental pollution on the island.'

[Hekate]

2. That's a good thing. nt

[JI7]

3. Does anyone know details on the immigration case ?

If he became a permanent resident why was he deported ?

[TygrBright]

4. Probably because of a felony conviction served plus a repeat offense. n/t

[Jose Garcia]

6. He was deported for a felony DUI but then came back illegally

[Calista241]

7. He was convicted of an "aggravated felony" DUI in 1988.

In 2004, SCOTUS made a separate ruling in another case, and California removed the 'aggravated felony' status from non-violent DUI offenses, and it became a misdemeanor.

The ruling goes on:

Although the Court acknowledged that this immigrant’s removal order “never should have issued,” that error alone was not enough to warrant a ruling in his favor. Rather, the criminal re-entry statute requires that a person wishing to challenge an underlying removal order must demonstrate three things: “(1) they have ‘exhausted any administrative remedies,’ (2) they were ‘deprived . . . of the opportunity for judicial review,’ and (3) ‘the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.'” Palomar-Santiago did not meet those requirements — and the lower courts were not authorized to excuse them.

Basically, Palomar-Santiago shouldn't have been deported, but because he was, and he doesn't meet these 3 criteria, he cannot appeal his deportation.

[aggiesal]

8. Also, I don't believe he was a U.S. Citizen ...

he was a legal resident.
But as stated earlier, he had committed crimes.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Were they overturning lower court rulings? What's to decide if 9-0?

[TomWilm]

9. A victory by the US would have allowed it to "dodge liability" for military-sites cleanup

The cost to remedy the Ordot Dump, which the Navy used during World War Two to discard munitions and toxic waste including Agent Orange, is estimated at $160 million. Guam took charge of the unlined landfill that has leaked toxic chemicals into the Pacific Ocean when its civilian government replaced the U.S. military one in 1950. It closed it in 2011 and began cleaning it up in 2013.

The island territory sued the United States in Connecticut federal court to force it to take on some of the financial responsibilities for the dump's cleanup. Monday's ruling is also a win for a group of two dozen states that has warned in a friend-of-the-court filing that a victory by the United States would allow it to "dodge liability" for military-sites cleanup.

https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/scotus-sides-with-guam-160-million-ex-navy-dump-superfund-case-2021-05-24/

[RainCaster]

10. Two thumbs up for this one!