Barton v. Barr
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 4, 2019
Decided April 23, 2020
Full case nameAndre Martello Barton, Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General
Docket no.18-725
Citations590 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Holding
The court held that for purposes of cancellation-of-removal eligibility, a §1182(a)(2) offense committed during the initial seven years of residence does not need to be one of the offenses of removal.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
Laws applied
8 U.S. Code § 1182

Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. __ (2020) is a Supreme Court of the United States ruling which upheld a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that permanent residents could be rendered "inadmissible" to the United States for an offense after the initial seven years of residence under the Reed Amendment.

Background

Andre Martello Barton was born in Jamaica admitted to the United States in May, 1989. In 1992, he became a lawful green-card resident of the U.S. However, he was found guilty of criminal damage to property, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-106) and violations of Georgia's Controlled Substances Act.[1]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determined that Barton could be deported for these offenses. Barton filed an appeal to cancel his deportation to the United States Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) as he had been a permanent resident for over seven years.[2][3]

Ruling

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the majority opinion, ruled that DHS could deport Barton stating "the immigration laws enacted by Congress do not allow cancellation of removal when a lawful permanent resident has amassed a criminal record of this kind."[4]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that as Barton had already been admitted, the Government must prove he is deportable rather than just inadmissible.[5]

References

  1. ↑ "Barton v. Barr". Ballotpedia. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  2. ↑ "Barton v. Barr". Oyez. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  3. ↑ Lambe, Jerry (April 23, 2020). "Supreme Court Conservatives Rule Against Legal Immigrant Who Sought to Reverse a Deportation Order". Law & Crime. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  4. ↑ Kavanaugh, Justice Brett. "Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  5. ↑ Sotomayor, Justice Sonia. "Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.