Gorsuch Could Disappoint Conservatives On Immigration

interesting read:

But Gorsuch’s perspective on immigration is more complex. As a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he was more moderate on immigration than his conservative reputation might suggest. In fact, his opinion in a high-profile case from 2016 could offer clues on his perspective in the two cases now before him, said Michael Kagan, an immigration law professor at the UNLV Boyd School of Law. “It’s hard to predict, of course, but this could be an area where there’s quite a bit of daylight between Gorsuch and Scalia.”

Gorsuch’s previous ruling has the clearest implications for the Sessions case, according to Kagan. In that case, James Dimaya, a citizen of the Philippines but a permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of breaking into houses, which an immigration court said in 2010 constituted a “crime of violence.” Dimaya, who was slated to be deported, is challenging whether it’s sufficiently clear that he committed a “crime of violence” — reasonable people might disagree about whether a burglary is actually a violent crime. In a criminal case, a defendant could challenge a provision like this as unconstitutionally vague, i.e. a violation of his due process rights.

In the 10th Circuit decision last year, Gorsuch pointedly criticized government agencies’ broad power. In response to an attempt by a federal agency to alter the procedure by which undocumented immigrants seek legal status, Gorsuch wrote for the unanimous panel of judges, “If the agency were free to change the law retroactively based on shifting political winds, it could use that power to punish politically disfavored groups or individuals for conduct they can no longer alter.” In other words, courts should be able to stop government agencies from overreaching or acting unfairly, especially in situations where they hold significant power over vulnerable people like immigrants.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...migration/amp/