Popular Press
Right and Fair for Whom? The Court’s Decision in Torres v. Lynch Is Wrong and Unfair
Hamilton and Griffin on Rights
(2016)
Abstract
Despite the majority’s statement that its reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was “right and fair,” the decision in Torres v. Lynch is wrong and unfair to many long-term legal residents and their families. The Court held in a 5 to 3 decision that a New York state court conviction for attempted arson fell within the INA’s “aggravated felony” provision even though the federal statute for arson includes a jurisdictional element not in the state statute. The Court broadly interpreted the statute to reach conduct not specified in the statute, contrary to the rule of lenity, which calls on courts to narrowly construe criminal statutes. As a result, long-term, legal residents who have committed crimes their respective states view as relatively minor will now face permanent exile from the United States.
Disciplines
- Law and
- Immigration Law
Publication Date
May 23, 2016
Citation Information
Angela D. Morrison. "Right and Fair for Whom? The Court’s Decision in Torres v. Lynch Is Wrong and Unfair" Hamilton and Griffin on Rights (2016) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/angela_morrison/39/