Justices raise bar for noncitizens to challenge removal from US after conviction

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against an undocumented immigrant who sought to challenge his removal from the U.S. after being convicted in Nebraska of using a false identity to gain employment.

In a 5-3 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority ruled that Clemente Pereida’s crime made him eligible for deportation, despite some uncertainty about which exact provision of the state criminal code he had violated.

Pereida’s ability to remain in the U.S., where he has lived for 25 years, hinged on whether his use of a fraudulent social security card to obtain a job was considered to be a crime of “moral turpitude,” or a serious offense. Such convictions make it vastly more difficult for undocumented immigrants to challenge their removal by immigration authorities.

The narrow issue before the justices was which party — the defendant or the government — bears the burden of proving whether or not the crime in question was one of moral turpitude when the factual record is unclear.

Five conservative justices on Thursday ruled that the burden lies with the defendant, prompting a dissent from the court’s three liberals. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court's sixth conservative member, had not been seated when the case was argued in October.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said federal immigration law imposes a “heavy burden” on immigrants seeking relief... (Read more)

Latest News