AAfPE is the nation’s largest and continuously operating organization
dedicated to promoting quality paralegal and legal studies education. Join
now to access a wealth of resources!
an online listserv where you can post questions and share resources at
your convenience
The Paralegal Educator, AAfPE's peer-reviewed professional journal
AAfPE Bytes, AAfPE's online technology newsletter
Access to the Electronic Resource Library, an online repository of
information, resources, and tools to assist you in program direction.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION F O R P A R A L EG A L E D U C A T I O N
W W W . A A F P E . O R G
I N F O @ A A F P E . O R G
www.ParalegalToday.com Q3 - 2017 17
immigration. However, a holdover from
last term, Sessions v. Dimaya (No. 15-1498)
will reargue the question, “Is 18 U.S.C.
§16(b), as incorporated into the provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) governing the removal of an alien
from the United States, unconstitutionally
vague?” In this case, a lawful immigrant
committed two nonviolent burglaries
and faced deportation under the INA.
Arguing that his crimes were not “crimes of
violence” as defined in the statute, Dimaya
successfully persuaded the Ninth Circuit
that his deportation would be unlawful.
Dimaya represents an opportunity for the
Court to address whether the vagueness
doctrine applies with equal force in an
immigration context as in a criminal
context. The vagueness doctrine is a
constitutional rule based in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments that requires
all criminal laws to state explicitly and
definitely what conduct is punishable, the
purpose being to prevent the arbitrary
application of laws. Although immigration
cases are civil in nature, if the Court agrees
with the government that the vagueness
doctrine should not apply to the INA, we
may face a scenario where a statute may be
simultaneously unconstitutionally vague in
some contexts, but not in others.
Dimaya is only one of several
immigration cases the Court will be hearing
this term. American citizens placed into
civil or criminal detention are guaranteed a
bond hearing and may be released on bond
if they do not present a flight risk or danger
to the community; however, the same is
not true for immigrants seeking admission
to the United States or even long-term
green card holders. The constitutionality
of this disparity is the focus of Jennings v.
Rodriguez (No. 15-1204), another holdover
from last term. Class representative
Alejandro Rodriguez is a lawful permanent
resident, employed as a dental assistant.
After being convicted on criminal charges
for possession of a controlled substance
and “joyriding,” Rodriguez subsequently
spent three years in detention without
a bond hearing while fighting removal
from the country. Although his removal
was eventually canceled, and he remains
in the United States, he and other class
members brought suit, challenging
the lawfulness of the government’s
prolonged detention practice. When this
case was previously argued, the justices
appeared to be deeply divided, both by
the questionable constitutionality of
indefinite detention without a hearing,
and by the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation
of a District Court injunction generally
requiring bond hearings every six months.
The government’s case challenges the
requirement of periodic bond hearings
and the standard by which the bond
should be granted.
While you have certainly heard about
it on the news, events in the so-called
travel ban case have unfolded in such a
quick (by appellate standards) and chaotic
manner that this has become perhaps the
most infamous hearing on the Court’s
calendar this term. The consolidated
matters of Trump v. Hawaii (No. 16-
1540) and Trump v. International Refugee
Assistance Project (IRAP) (No. 16-1436) will
collectively examine the constitutionality
of §2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780
(EO–2); whether §2(c) of EO–2 violates the
establishment clause by discriminating
against citizens from majority Muslim
nations; whether a global injunction
/www.ParalegalToday.com
/www.aafpe.org