Both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump have made no secret of their position on immigration. In a speech made near the US-Mexico border, Sessions made it clear that he intended to seek harsher charges for illegal immigrants. Specifically, he made it so a deported immigrant who attempts to re-enter the country will now face felony charges as opposed to misdemeanor charges. And just days after the inauguration, Trump signed an executive order giving broad powers to federal immigration agents. Now the Supreme Court has made their first crime-related decision regarding the potential removal of a Mexican immigrant. In Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, the Court considered the case of Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a permanent lawful resident of the US who was accused of having committed a “sex crime.”
The Facts of the Case
When he was 20-years old, Esquivel-Quintana dated and had relations with his girlfriend who was 16-years old at the time. As this constituted a violation of consent under California law, he was convicted. As per section 1101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any immigrant convicted of an “aggravated felony” is to be removed from the US and no relief is to be granted. The question posed to the court was whether Esquivel-Quintana’s crime fell under the category of “aggravated felony.”
According to Section 1101(a)(43) of the INA, the definition of an “aggravated felony” includes the “sexual abuse of a minor.” The US government initially saw this as a clear-cut case, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (IBA) dismissed his appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit deferred to the IBAs interpretation of the INA, using what is called “Chevron Deference” – a term that refers to the landmark case from 1984 that gave federal agencies authority to interpret statute. The lower court thus agreed that Esquivel-Quintana should be removed.
The Supreme Court Ruling
In the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the unanimous majority opinion, the question posed to the court was “whether a conviction under a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA.” Their answer was a resounding no.
To arrive at their ruling, the Justices employed a categorical approach to the nature of the crime. That is to say, instead of looking at the empirical facts of the case, they opted to determine “whether the state statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits within the ‘generic’ federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony.” What does this mean? Simply put, the Court looked at the state statute under which the defendant was convicted and compared it to the corresponding federal law. According to Cal. Penal Code §261.5(c) (the state statute), sexual intercourse is unlawful if it happens between someone who is under 18 and someone who just turned 21. However, under federal law, the definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the victim to be under 16. Since the crime committed does not fall under the “generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor,” the court decided that that the INA does not justify the removal of Esquivel-Quintana.
Ordinary Interpretation Prevails
In approaching the case this way, the high court avoided altogether the pitfalls of Chevron Deference. Looking at the statute in its proper context, the Justices continued their streak of interpreting law in an ordinary textual manner, such as with Mellouli v. Lynch and Moncrieffe v. Holder. This has proven somewhat effective in combatting the administration’s intense immigration policy.
Leave a Comment