affirmative defense
wex
CIVIL LAW
clear and convincing evidence
“Clear and convincing evidence” is a medium level burden of proof which must be met for certain convictions/judgments.
wex
equity
wex
legal systems
A legal system is the framework of rules, procedures, and institutions that a community uses to interpret and enforce their laws. A legal system is binding on all legal disputes within its jurisdiction.
wex
Sessions v. Dimaya
Issues
Is 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into a civil deportation statute, unconstitutionally vague?
The Supreme Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions regarding deportation, is unconstitutionally vague. In doing so, the Court will also decide whether it should assess the constitutionality of this provision under the vagueness standard applicable to criminal statutes or under a less strict standard. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that the Court should apply a less strict vagueness standard to § 16(b) in this case because of its civil rather than criminal context. Sessions also argues that § 16(b) is not unconstitutionally vague under the proposed lower standard because its language is plainly intelligible. James Garcia Dimaya contends, however, that the Court should apply the vagueness standard applicable to criminal statutes in this case because the Court applied this standard to a deportation statute in Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). Dimaya also asserts that § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague because it shares the same features that made a provision unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The outcome of this case will have consequences for the validity of § 16(b) as it is incorporated into other criminal and civil laws and for the government’s ability to remove some aliens from the United States.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.
Respondent James Garcia Dimaya, a citizen of the Philippines, immigrated to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992 at the age of thirteen. See Brief for Respondent, James Garcia Dimaya at 5; Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015).
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Bob Egelko, US High Court to Hear Bay Area Case over Deportation Law, SFGATE (Sept. 29, 2016).
- Allissa Wickham, High Court to Hear Whether ‘Crime of Violence’ Too Vague, Law 360 (Sept. 29, 2016).
Submit for publication
0
tort
wex