Vartelas v. Holder

Vartelas v. Holder

Argued January 18, 2012
Decided March 28, 2012
Full case name Panagis Vartelas, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Docket nos. 10-1211
Citations

566 U.S. ___ (more)

Prior history Plaintiff denied reentry and removed (Bd. Immigr. 2003); affirmed, 2009 WL 331200 (Bd. Immigr. App. 2008); affirmed, 620 F.3d 108 (2nd Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 564 U.S. ___ (2011)
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was improperly applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas, violating the principle that laws are to be deemed prospective only, absent compelling evidence of congressional intent to apply them retroactively. Second Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas, Alito

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.[1]

Background

In the early 1990s, Panagis Vartelas, a Greek immigrant to the United States, got involved with counterfeiting traveler's cheques.[2] Vartelas pled guilty in 1994 to "conspiracy to make or possess a counterfeit security."[3]

In January 2003, Vartelas took a one-week trip to Greece. While returning through John F. Kennedy Airport, an immigration officer questioned Vartelas about his 1994 conviction.[2][3] In March 2003, Vartelas was served a notice to appear for removal proceedings "because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in 1994."[2]

Vartelas appeared before an immigration judge in a series of hearings. In 2006, an immigration judge denied Vartelas' application for waiver and ordered Vartelas removed to Greece. Vartelas made a timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the board dismissed.[3]

Vartelas subsequently filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The motion to reopen "claimed that Vartelas' prior counsel was ineffective having failed to raise the issue of whether 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) could be applied retroactively."[3] The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen; Vartelas filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit denied the petition for review; Vartelas appealed the Second Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme Court.[3]

Opinion of the Court

In a 6–3 opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was improperly applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas. Normally, laws are presumed to apply prospectively only. Absent clear evidence of a congressional intent that the law operate retroactively, it was error to do so[1] Justice Ginsburg's opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he stated that "we should concern ourselves with the statute's actual operation on regulated parties, not with retroactivity as an abstract concept or as a substitute for fairness concerns."[4] He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Scalia held that the law was not applied retroactively under a "commonsense approach" to the statute and therefore this was a "relatively easy case."[4]

References

  1. 1 2 "Supreme Court rules for Queens businessman in immigration case". NY Daily News. 2012-03-29. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
  2. 1 2 3 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1211_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "Vartelas v. Holder | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law". Oyez.org. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
  4. 1 2 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1211.pdf

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, March 25, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.