https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-r ... edium=RP78
Supreme Court Rules Against Green Card Holder Challenging Deportation
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
The court’s ruling reversed a previous decision from the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The lower court held that Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican citizen deported for a 1998 DUI, was removed invalidly because of a subsequent Supreme Court decision finding that DUIs were not sufficient cause for removal.
The case arose in 2019 when Palomar-Santiago was found to be in the country illegally.
He argued, and the 9th Circuit agreed, that his original deportation was not valid.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor struck down that notion in the court’s unanimous opinion.
Sotomayor wrote that Palomar-Santiago had not attempted to exhaust all of his other options to reverse the deportation before reentering the country illegally.
She chided the 9th Circuit, which the court frequently reverses, for attempting to excuse him from normal procedures.
“When Congress uses ‘mandatory language’ in an administrative exhaustion provision, ‘a court may not excuse a failure to exhaust,'” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet that is what the Ninth Circuit’s rule does.”
During the case’s oral arguments in April, several of the Justices made clear that they were going to side against Palomar-Santiago.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that he was skeptical of the idea that when immigration law changes, the judicial branch should be forced to “unscramble the eggs” on past cases.
“There are a lot of areas where the door closes, and you lose the right to go back and challenge prior determinations,” he said.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that gives new life to a lawsuit Guam brought against the United States over a massive waste site leaking toxic chemicals into the Pacific Ocean.
Guam closed the Ordot Landfill in 2011 as part of a $160 million settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In court filings over the years, Guam argued that it should not have to foot the bill alone as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act contains a provision for settling parties to seek contribution from other responsible parties.
At issue in the case is whether a 2004 settlement between the U.S and Guam under the Clean Water Act should prevent the U.S. territory from pursuing payment under another law that deals with hazardous waste cleanup known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
Monday’s ruling said Guam can pursue U.S. payments under the hazardous waste law.
The court said that just because the U.S. and Guam had reached an agreement under a different environmental law, namely the Clean Water Act, that does not mean Guam can’t pursue additional payments under CERCLA.
During oral arguments, an attorney representing the federal government argued that what counts as a “response action,” under CERCLA isn’t specific to actions taken under the waste law.
The Navy for years dumped waste at Guam’s Ordot Dump, where the territory also dumped municipal waste.
In the 2004 agreement, Guam paid the U.S. after it alleged that the territory had violated the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into U.S. waters without a permit.
In 2017, the territory sued the U.S., seeking money for the cost of cleanup at the now-closed site.
The Supreme Court remanded the issue back to a lower court.
