5. News from the Courts:

Supreme Court Rejects Retroactive Application of Immigration Law Provision

The American Immigration Council announced support for the recent Supreme Court decision Vartelas v. Holder in which the Court rejected the retroactive application of a provision of a law passed by Congress in 1996 that has prevented many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from returning to the United States after a trip abroad. The Justice Department argued that LPRs with certain criminal convictions may be barred from re-entering the United States any time they leave the country—even if the law in effect at the time of their guilty pleas did not make them eligible for deportation or ineligible for reentry to the United States. Citing the "deeply rooted presumption" against applying new laws retroactively, the Court ruled 6-3 that LPRs who temporarily leave the country cannot be denied readmission on account of criminal convictions that occurred before the law took effect, noting that doing so effectively prevented such LPRs from leaving the country.

*****

Federal Court Upholds Border Roadblock 25 Miles from Border

The Newspaper.com reports that in the past, the US Supreme Court has upheld the use of suspicion-less “border” roadblocks located more than twenty-five miles from the actual border. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona followed this ruling when it determined suspicion-less roadblocks are permissible. The 2000 Supreme Court Case Indianapolis v. Edmond clarified its stance on roadblocks by stipulating that their primary purpose must be for immigration rather than detecting general crime and drug use. In U.S. vs. Ruiz-Perez, U.S. District Judge Jennifer G. Zipps determined that the use of a roadblock to catch Mr. Ruiz-Perez, a long-haul truck driver, smuggling drugs was permissible because there was no reason to “question whether the roadblock had a primary purpose other than immigration.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3759.asp

*****