Constitutional Law

High Court Rules In Immigration Case; Upholds Some Limits on Warrantless Searches

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that federal courts can consider, under a less stringent standard, undocumented immigrants' petitions against deportation. An undocumented immigrant 'seeking a stay of removal pending adjudication of a petition for review does not ask for a coercive order against the Government, but rather for a temporary setting aside of the source of the Government's authority to remove,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the 7-2 majority in Nken v. Holder. The case involves Jean Marc Nken, a citizen of Cameroon, who came to the U.S. in 2001 and did not leave after his visa expired. In challenging his removal before immigration and federal courts he maintained that if he were sent back to Cameroon he would likely be persecuted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Nken's request for a stay of his removal. Roberts concluded that the appeals court applied the wrong standard in denying Nken's stay and remanded the case to be considered under the proper standard.

Yesterday, the high court limited the ability of police officers to search vehicles without warrants. In Arizona v. Gant, the Court ruled 5-4 that police need a warrant to search a vehicle of someone they have arrested. The decision upholds a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court in favor of Rodney Gant who was arrested by police officers and locked in the back of their patrol car while they searched his car and found cocaine. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the evidence could not be used against Gant at trial, because it was obtained without a search warrant. Citing precedent, John Paul Stevens concluded that the high court has 'held that a search incident to arrest may only include ‘the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control – construing that phrase to mean the area within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.'' In this situation, Stevens concluded that Gant was in no position to obtain a weapon or disturb evidence and therefore a warrant was needed to search his car. Writing for the dissent, Justice Samuel Alito maintained, 'There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence.'

Full post as published by ACS Blog on April 22, 2009 (boomark / email).