Neil Gorsuch’s Latest Vote Surprises Conservatives And Liberals Alike…

This is gonna mess with the left’s entire psyche.

According to this, Justice Neil Gorsuch “sided with an immigrant convicted of residential burglary and facing deportation and found the term ‘crime of violence’ was unconstitutionally vague.”

That’s right. He voted with the liberal justices.

The court ruled 5-4, with Justice Elena Kagan delivering the opinion. The justices affirmed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in 2015 that a provision of federal immigration law subjecting immigrants to deportation if they are convicted of a “crime of violence” was too vague.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, nominated by President Trump and considered a member of the court’s conservative wing, cast the deciding vote by joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan, who make up the court’s liberal wing.

This wasn’t a new case, either. They were deadlocked and went into this knowing Gorsuch would make the final call.

James Garcia Dimaya, a lawful permanent resident who immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines at 13, brought the case.

Dimaya was convicted of residential burglary in 2007 and 2009, though neither of the crimes involved violence. The Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, though, sought to deport Dimaya in 2010 after determining the crimes could be considered crimes of violence.

The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the Obama administration’s conclusion that Dimaya should be deported, as one of the convictions constituted an “aggravated felony” and therefore made him subject to mandatory deportation.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and decided the definition of “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which incorporates the definition of “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague.

The government then appealed the ruling to the high court.

BTW– it’s important to note that Dimaya is NOT an illegal immigrant.

It's almost like Gorsuch rules based on a dispassionate legal theory that doesn't particularly care whether a litigant is a designated victim in your power dynamics

— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) April 17, 2018

Read the case. Gorsuch cast the right vote in Sessions v. Dimaya, IMO. He starts with "Vague laws invite arbitrary power" and is convincing from there. https://t.co/VQfASEu5Po

— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) April 17, 2018

I'm actually reading Gorsuch's concurrence and find myself nodding along with him. https://t.co/IkcVT2XoW9 His basic argument is that the law, as construed, gives judges way too much discretion to act on their whims because Congress was too vague in how it wrote the law.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 17, 2018

Once again: Anyone who wrote that Gorsuch would be a “rubber stamp” for Trump, or that he was some crafty political hack, was either lying to you or had no idea whatsoever who Gorsuch is, what his record shows, or how he views the law. https://t.co/C1Ic28CPp2

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 17, 2018

If nothing else, Gorsuch's elevation to SCOTUS has been a glorious gift to attorneys, law students, and legal beagles, as he is a joy to read. So few SCOTUS justices are. Very different from Scalia, but carrying on that tradition in his own way.

— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) April 17, 2018

And before libs get too carried away…

This is not a diss of Trump (the case started under BHO). This is arguably a demand for Congress to improve it's drafting.

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 17, 2018

Agreed. Void-for-vagueness doctrine has nothing to do with anything Presidential.

— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) April 17, 2018

Even if you disagree with his vote, it’s nice to see that he’s an individual who votes not on stereotypical party lines, but on the facts of the case. That’s what we want, right? Someone who’s devoted to holding up the Constitution, not a left-wing or right-wing agenda.

h/t Washington Examiner