Thread: Supreme Court Appoints Advocate to Argue Immigration Case

Posted by Mike Scarcella on July 31, 2009 at 03:44 PM Supreme Court Appoints Advocate to Argue Immigration Case

As we reported here last year, one of the little-known paths a lawyer can take to achieving the goal of arguing before the Supreme Court comes when a party decides it no longer wants to argue in favor of or against a lower court decision that is on appeal. When that happens, half the case falls away, so to speak. The Supreme Court, if it still wants an airing of the issue at stake, then appoints a lawyer -- almost always a former law clerk to a justice -- to advance the now-orphaned argument.

It happens rarely, once every year or so, and it happened again yesterday. The Court issued an order Thursday appointing Amanda Leiter, a professor at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, to argue in favor of the decision below in an immigration case, Kucana v. Holder. Ordinarily, since the U.S. government is the respondent, the solicitor general's office would be making that argument. But Solicitor General Elena Kagan in her brief in the case, agreed with petitioner Agron Kucana, an Albanian facing deportation, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit was wrong. With no one supporting the 7th Circuit, the Court appointed Leiter.

At issue is whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of an immigrant's motion to reopen proceedings. "It's an important case," said Sidley Austin partner Jeffrey Green, author of a brief in the case on behalf of immigration advocacy groups. "You ought to be able to reopen a case when something new falls in your lap."

In the case before the Court, Kucana sought to reopen his removal proceedings based on changes in the political conditions in Albania that he claimed would make him eligible for asylum. But the immigration judge and Board of Imigration Appeals rejected the motion, and the 7th Circuit dismissed Kucana's petition, finding that the court had no jurisdiction to review such appeals.

But the SG's brief argues that in fact, the law limiting judicial review of certain immigration matters does not extend to appeals of the board's denial of motions to reopen. Is this a new position taken by the Obama Justice Department, switching from the Bush era? Not really, said Green. "The government never took the harsh jurisdictional view on this issue."

Leiter, who was a litigator at the Natural Resources Defense Council before entering academia, teaches administrative law. In addition to her law degree from Harvard, she holds degrees in oceanography and civil engineering. She could not be reached for comment.



http://legaltimes.typepad.com/

Quote:
"The Court issued an order Thursday appointing Amanda Leiter, a professor at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, to argue in favor of the decision below in an immigration case, Kucana v. Holder."

Perhaps having 5 (and soon 6) Catholic judges on the U.S. Supreme Court is going to become an additional danger to court impartiality in subtle ways we were not allowed to voice during their confirmation hearings.

Originally Posted by Texas2step

Quote:
"The Court issued an order Thursday appointing Amanda Leiter, a professor at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, to argue in favor of the decision below in an immigration case, Kucana v. Holder."

Perhaps having 5 (and soon 6) Catholic judges on the U.S. Supreme Court is going to become an additional danger to court impartiality in subtle ways we were not allowed to voice during their confirmation hearings.

And precisely what is that supposed to mean? Catholics are not qualified to be Justices? Perhaps you would prefer the deportation of all Catholics? The above statement is bigotry pure in simple and I think you owe all of the Catholics on this board an apology.

That is really not an insult per se to Catholics. It is just a speculation that religion could play a part in the immigration debate, in a negative way towards the cause of enforcement imo...

Religion, religion.... the wars it causes. Let the Rich Vatican (country) move all the third world immigrants into their country and make them citizens.

Wonder which religions are in the New World Order plans?

Why did the many of the first foreign invaders first come to America? B/c of Religion.

Constitution of the United States, enforcement of Immigration Laws, and secure the Borders and interior.

This judge seems to be there of the Global Warming Corner, too.

Originally Posted by Tbow009

That is really not an insult per se to Catholics. It is just a speculation that religion could play a part in the immigration debate, in a negative way towards the cause of enforcement imo...

So Catholics are a negative when it comes to immigration enforcement? Do you even have a clue how many Catholics are very active activists on this site? Or would you prefer I just withdraw my membership right now?

I've never heard of any Vatican plan to do that. Many religions preach hospitality and generosity towards the poor, but are also practical as well. Christianity also teaches submission to governments and obedience to the law. http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2006/septem ... -32.0.html

From time to time, people with access to a pulpit may take advantage of the opportunity to sound warm and fuzzy, but that doesn't equate to actual plans or policy. I get irritated by pulpit platitudes too, and from a variety of sources.

cayla99: Are you talking to me?

No your enemies and friends, always.

Many religions are very PRO Illegal Immigrant.

Once someone can view that one fact the next question is WHY?

Senator Kennedy is a great beginning point to study.

Related and Using Tax Payer $$$$:
Menendez, Gillibrand and Kennedy, Bills to Stop imm Abuse
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-165288.html

I think that the piece from Christianity Today helps me to make the distinction between pro immigration and pro immigrant. To me, many people, especially in the pulpit confuse the two. I personally believe that even legal immigration needs to be reduced, at least for a time. But I would never be cruel or thoughtless to a person I encountered (I hope!). I believe illegals should be deported - but not endangered or humiliated in the process. I believe we should strictly enforce legal status in the workplace. But I am not willing to see a child go hungry. Yes, that child will have to be sent home with the parents (which is not happening now). That is how I see the issue. But it is easy for people in the pulpit (any pulpit) to start lecturing us as if we are stupid and cruel when we're not.

It happens rarely, once every year or so, and it happened again yesterday. The Court issued an order Thursday appointing Amanda Leiter, a professor at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, to argue in favor of the decision below in an immigration case, Kucana v. Holder. Ordinarily, since the U.S. government is the respondent, the solicitor general's office would be making that argument. But Solicitor General Elena Kagan in her brief in the case, agreed with petitioner Agron Kucana, an Albanian facing deportation, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit was wrong. With no one supporting the 7th Circuit, the Court appointed Leiter.

If I was a Pro-Illegal supporter I would go for the best with the most power, support, and knowledge for my cause. America the Beautiful! You have to love her.

When the Muslims take over the courts, I guess we will have Sharia Law to fight instead of Immigration Laws. It can happen!

Watch all videos related to post at the link:
NC MEN CHARGE WITH PLOTTING 'VIOLENT JIHAD' (LAST EVENING)
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-164775-.html
(Listen to man called Jihard explain how wonderful his religion is in Raleigh, NC area.)