Constitutional Law

Justices Preserve Asylum Possibility; Deny Groups Challenge To Forest Service

The U.S. Supreme Court left open the possibility that an Eritrean prison guard who was forced to work for the military may still gain asylum in the United States. In an 8-1 ruling, the high court remanded the guard's case to the appeals court to weigh whether the guard's coercion to work for the Eritrean military prevents him from falling under a federal law that says that an 'alien who fears persecution in his homeland and seeks refugee status in this country is barred from obtaining that relief if he has persecuted others.'

Daniel Girmai Negusie, a dual citizen of Eritrea and Ethiopia, was conscripted into the Eritrea military, but refused to fight against Ethiopia. He was subsequently imprisoned and beaten by Eritrean guards. Two years later, he was released, but forced to work as a prison guard. The prisoners he guarded, court documents show, were persecuted because of their 'race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group social group, or political opinion.' Neguise eventually escaped the prison and made his way to the United States, where he applied for asylum.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both denied Neguise's request for asylum citing the 'persecutor bar' of the Refugee Act of 1980. Neguise's attorneys, however, argued before the appeals court and the Supreme Court that he was coerced into working for the Eritrean military and therefore should not be barred from asylum. Writing for the high court majority in Negusie v. Holder, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded that the BIA must determine whether the intent of Neguise should be taken into account. 'If the BIA decides to adopt a standard that considers voluntariness to some degree, it may be prudent and necessary for the Immigration Judge to conduct additional factfinding based on the new standard,' wrote Justice Kennedy. Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent, wrote that immigration law 'unambiguously precludes any inquiry into whether the persecutor acted voluntarily, i.e., free from coercion or duress, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.'

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court found that environmental groups lack the ability to challenge in court federal regulations that shield the U.S. Forest Service from public comment. In 2002 a large part of the Sequoia National Forest was destroyed by fire. The Forest Service then approved a salvage sale of timber without notice or seeking public comment. Environmental groups, such as the Earth Island Institute, challenged the Forest Service's action, arguing that they should have had the opportunity to comment on Forest Service actions. Writing for the majority in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the environmental groups 'have suffered a procedural injury, namely that they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actions and will continue to be so denied. But deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation' does not provide the groups the 'standing' to challenge the Forest Service in court.

The justices yesterday declined to review a federal appeals court decision that barred a high school football coach from participating in prayer with his players. Without comment the Supreme Court declined review of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that supported a New Jersey public school district's ban on employees participating in religous activites with students. In 1962, the Supreme Cour ruled that volutary prayer in the public schools is permissible, but that prayer organized by public school officials violated the First Amendment principle of the separtion of church and state.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 03, 2009 (boomark / email).