The Supreme Court handed down a stinging defeat for the Trump Administration in a unanimous decision in Maslenjak v. United States, where the Administration sought to strip an immigrant of U.S. citizenship over a false statement made on an immigration form. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the justices declared that the government could not strip citizenship from Divna Maslenjak because she falsely stated that her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s. Notably, the Obama Administration had taken the same hard position in the case and the Trump Administration continued that position on the appeal.
The Trump administration argued that the government should be able to revoke citizenship of people for even minor misstatements in the citizenship application process. In this case, Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb, falsely answered the question after entering the United States as a refugee. Kagan wrote that “We have never read a statute to strip citizenship from someone who met the legal criteria for acquiring it. We will not start now.” She added “We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship.”
The case will now go back to the Sixth Circuit to determined whether Maslenjak’s false statements had a material effect on the U.S. decision to grant her refugee status.
Here is the decision: Maslenjak ruling
Rules? Law? We dont need any of that. Do what you want the Courts will back you up if you are an illegal or immigrant
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen”.
“Many of those who refuse or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance Because they are citizens.”- Unknown
Alexander Hamiliton
“…whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
Manifest
1. clear or obvious to the eye or mind.
Tenor
1. the general meaning, sense, or content of something.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Alexander Hamilton –
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
The SCOTUS has NO authority to legislate, modify legislation or engage in acts of corruption such as ignoring the law to favor individuals who have violated the manifest tenor of the law.
No amount of verbal obfuscation by the SCOTUS can mask its political and ideological intent and zeal.
This is the Supreme Court not the Supreme Dictator.
The SCOTUS has one charge which is to assure that actions comport with law.
It is patently illegal to falsify documents.
Falsifying documents voids the documents and the petition.
The legal recourse here is the impeachment and conviction of the SCOTUS for crimes of high office as nullifying legislation, usurping the power of the legislative branch by “legislating from the bench” and corruption for subjectively favoring a particular party over the manifest tenor of law.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If I had my way wed dump all SCOTUS but maybe Gorsuch.
@billmcwilliams, June 23, 2017 at 10:24 AM
“My mother gave false information concerning her marital status and name of biological father in an adoption proceeding.
“Was my adoption therefore illegal/subject to nullification?”
Sorry, Mr. McDoe, I’m afraid it was. Because of this material misrepresentation to The State on one of Its Forms, you are an un-adopted person without a country and only one ontological grade above red-headed step-children.
So sad.
Thanks for favouring me what Judgment S. C. Made. Thanks with warm regards. Shahabuddin Bhojani.
I found the limited concurrence by Gorsuch,J to be measured but elegant,far from the witty but acerbic forays penned by the late great Scalia,J.One would hope such grace would mediate the present political debates in the land.
I don’t understand the materiality issue (or non issue) in this case. Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain it more succinctly and directly than did Justice Kagan. Here are the facts: the immigrant and her family sought refugee status. She claimed that her family would be persecuted by the Bosnian Muslim govt because they were ethnic Serbs (true). She claimed that her family would be also persecuted by the Christian Serb govt because her husband had avoided military duty and hid during the war (false). In fact, her husband served as an officer with a Serbian army unit that slaughtered 8,000 Bosnian Muslims. Based upon her lie, she was granted refugee status. Five years later, when she sought citizenship, she was asked if she had ever lied to the U.S. govt. She falsely says “no.” The SCOTUS opinion dances around with all kinds of irrelevant examples about speeding and art work and knives in purses, but never addresses the facts of THIS case.
Bottom line, is SCOTUS saying that the immigrant’s false statement concerning her husband’s military activities is not material because (1) It was her husband that did the slaughtering, not her? Or (2) It’s cool that her husband slaughtered 8,0000 Muslims because otherwise they would all be here, wanting to be citizens as well? Or (3) The Muslims wouldn’t persecute her family in retaliation because they are The Religion of Peace? Or (4) The whole Serb-Bosnian thing is such a mess that nobody can possibly understand it, even the people from there? Or (5) We hand out refugee status like Halloween candy, so one more fake refugee won’t really matter?
Seriously, you should have been an advocate for the administration. One could be forgiven for wondering to what extent the SCOTUS decision is based upon:
1/ current political environment in which neoliberal globalism with open-borders (GOP wants it to profit the Oligarchy; so does the DNC who also depend upon immigrants for political power) trumps any concern about national borders & immigration laws;
2/ their dislike of Trump personally–ergo, their desire to rule against anything that his administration might support;
3/ the fact that immigration laws have been ignored by previous administrations–and ergo, they don’t want to set a precedent by which illegal aliens and/or legal aliens are deported for violating the law, including lying on entrance applications.
We live in bizarre times. The Oligarchy’s desire to eliminate nation-states has unforeseen consequences which are not pleasant for the citizens of our nation who are not rich and powerful. I suspect we shall see many more such decisions by this SCOTUS.
The court did not make any determination as to whether the false statements were material. This was not an immigration case, but a criminal case appealing a conviction for a specific crime. The Supreme Court determined the jury instructions were erroneous because they omitted the necessary element of materiality–so the jury never considered whether that element was proven. That matter was remanded to the lower court for various determinations and potentially a new trial with a properly instructed jury.
Thank you for the explanation. It still remains that the SCOTUS does not remain divorced from politics. Recall in Bush vs Gore:
“Yet, the 14th Amendment was precisely what Scalia and four other partisan Republicans on the Supreme Court cited to justify shutting down the Florida recount and handing the White House to Bush, despite the fact that he lost the national popular vote and apparently would have come out on the short end of the Florida recount if all legally cast ballots were counted.
To justify their ruling, the five Republican justices cited the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause in claiming that Florida’s electoral precincts had failed to apply common standards for counting votes. Then, rather than giving the state time to rectify the situation, the justices set a deadline of two hours, effectively assuring Bush’s “victory.”
In other words, Scalia and other right-wing justices operate with a situational ethic when it comes to “originalism” and “strict construction.” If their partisan and ideological interests require the abandoning of those precepts, the principles are dumped overboard.” Source: https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/010511.html
The SCOTUS even warned that its decision should not be considered to be precedent. Scalia departed from his judicial philosophy on states rights. The fact of the matter was that the SCOTUS stopped the vote-count because they wanted to install G. W. Bush as POTUS. It was an appalling decision–just as Citizens United was a bad decision. Members of the SCOTUS have become no better than the vultures in Congress and recent POTUSes who are greedy, partisan and hypocritical, putting their ambition before the good of our nation.
My mother gave false information concerning her marital status and name of biological father in an adoption proceeding.
Was my adoption therefore illegal/subject to nullification?
Yes. You’re now an orphan. Sorry.
Yes should have been because your natural father was denied his natural born rights as a father
Agree with those who say that the headline should read “Obama/Trump”–but in the current climate, throwing red-meat to Trump-haters garners a wider audience. That said, Jonathan Turley is a man of integrity, although I don’t always agree with him (e.g. Mueller isn’t a man of integrity. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/good-agent-bad-agent-robert-mueller-and-9-11/ )
Regarding the topic, I agree with Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter’s well-researched comment about materiality. But having lived in France, the UK and Austrialia– let me be clear– if one lies on immigration forms in those nations, one is not treated with the deference shown by the USA– in those nations, one is ousted faster than you can say “Brexit”. That may have changed after the neoliberal globalist agenda was enacted, and the borders opened without limit.
Falsifying forms should have some consequences, unless the lie was a typo or innocent mistake. I feel sorry for the poor folks who do not lie– who struggle using legal channels– who do the right thing in an attempt to immigrate to the USA, but who are left behind because they followed the rules, whilst cheaters, liars & illegals break the rules and are given special treatment & undue leniency.
Yes, if it were anything but one of the dems pet causes in question, someone would be in trial proceedings, they will protect their greed and instruments of control to the death (until they serve no purpose, then they are tossed aside or thrown to the lions). Ridiculous, and yes, chilling, as JT is fond of saying. I concur that Obama’s exclusion is very suspect and all too typical. Not good. I don’t know what we do when our judicial branch has been stacked against the American people.
PS, Gadfly, and everyone: I have known the whitest American people (in shade, not mentality) who have been instantly kicked out of whitey-white England for overstaying their visas by a nanosecond. They very simply, *enforce their laws*, they don’t descriminate in any particular direction. You violate ’em, you’re out. Simple. Our system is very, very broken, as are our young people and the faux society that enables them. I hope we can find balance again.
My opinion is with President Trump, he has not mislead the people yet and many “Judges” have been wrong! Make America great again and keep America safe.
It should be Trump/Obama. However, I still think that means Obama has never won a SC case.
I agree that the false answer should be examined for materiality, just as we set the same standard for our own citizens? See for example:
But there is a certain efficiency in simply doing it the way that both administrations requested. False answer, and you’re out! Quick, clean, efficient. Because this way, I foresee a lot of lawsuits over “materiality.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You’re going to be very sad. Law is hard. That’s why lawyers–wait for it; have to go to law school and pass a bar examination before practicing law. Two things about your Reddit-quality opinion which may ameliorate the harm it inflicted upon thinking persons: 1) yes, there already are lawsuits which address the materiality of person’s statements, those kinds of factual determinations are what lawsuits are for (law is hard); and 2) the case was remanded to the Sixth Circuit so that court could determine whether the false statement was material.
Is the law “hard”, or is it sometimes made “hard”, by lawyers—aka the people who make extra money if the law is “hard.”
For example, and I haven’t looked up the statute, but if the statute reads something like “any material misstatement” constitutes grounds for revocation and you will be deported” – – – then the law could simply be rewritten to read “any misstatement whatsoever.” True that is harsher, but much more easy to enforce.
Now, if a judge wishes to make the law “hard”, that court could read into the “any misstatement” language, a requirement that the statement be both intentional and material, thus insuring that lawyers will have plenty of cases to work on.
See how “hard” can be built into the law. So yes, there are truly things in the law that require some deep thinking, but quite often that “hardness” is built into the law by the lawyer class. For their own benefit. As a prime example, think death penalty cases, where lawyers have mucked it up to the point that it is extremely costly to rid society of its worst members, and to where prisons are both numerous and overcrowded, thus insuring even more work for the lawyer class.
Which is why the lawyers scream about Duterte, who opts for the simple and effective solution of just killing the drug dealers outside of the judicial system.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It’s not an immigration case–it’s a criminal case. The charged crime was procuring naturalization contrary to law. The SC decision just says that it is an essential element of the crime that the illegal act (“contrary to law” had some impact on “procuring” naturalization.
Because you’re not a lawyer, there are concepts which arise under our common-law legal system of which you are not aware. Those concepts have evolved over centuries. Analyzing the “materiality” of a misrepresentation is not anything new to lawyers, or even to law school students. Such considerations are necessary, because not every misstatement has the same value or consequences. Just as every lie from the witness stand is not per se perjurous, every misrepresentation on a government form is not per se material.
I know that. I know about common law. It’s judge made law, and makes for a very stable judicial and governmental system. Which is why nations that have that basis in English common law seem to do better that nations that don’t. For example, Australia and Canada vs. South America.
But what does that have to do with the profession, thru its judges and members in government, making the law more difficult, and thus enhancing their necessity in society? It’s no different than a doctor ordering extra tests, and then come to find out either he, or an associate, owns the lab where the tests are done. One is left wondering, “Did I really need that test???”
And what does common law, in general, have to do with statutory law which tends to replace the common law when they are on the same subjects? Further, the issues at bar are federal statutes. And supposedly there is no federal common law.
I have done enough research, and written enough briefs, to know that darn near any issue or point can be lawyered to death, and made much more complicated than it needs to be.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Sit down, it’s another sad moment for you. A simple Westlaw search of “common /s law /s federal /s court” returns over 10,000 hits. In the interest of brevity, I’ve included money shots from but two of that 10K:
Courts may look to “the emerging federal common law of ERISA, utilizing state law as the basis of the federal common law only to the extent that such state law is not inconsistent with congressional policy concerns.” Thomason v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 9 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 1993).
Critchlow v. First UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 378 F.3d 246, 256 (2d Cir. 2004) (“In developing federal common law in an area, the courts may look to state law ….”).
Morals of the story: 1) Erie v. Tompkins doesn’t mean what some people think; and 2) on the interwebs, nobody knows you’re a dog.
Instead of reading the Internet, you maybe should have read what I wrote more carefully. I said, “SUPPOSEDLY, there is no Federal Common law.
I didn’t write you a brief on it, and I clearly left open the fact that some things certainly look like “common law” on a Federal level, yet it is usually very restricted to a few areas. If you wish to read up on it, you might try this:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2244&context=law_faculty_scholarship
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
LOL Squeeky – I think you’re on to them. You nailed it. I am a lawyer. Lawyering is not even a little “hard” and anyone who suggests it is was either at the bottom of their graduating class or dramatizing it all to milk their clients, or both. I’ve seen pro se litigants whose representation, analysis, and arguments on their own behalf are far superior to most attorneys and often superior to many State Court judges who are mostly failed lawyers who thought the practice of law was just “too hard”.
Thank you!!! My BFF is an attorney, and I help her in her practice when she needs me. I do research, and write motions and briefs. I meet with clients sometimes and do intake on them. So, while I am not an attorney, I am sort of a legal person.
The only thing I have had any difficulty with is in civil procedure, about when a case is removable to Federal court or not. Which, I don’t feel too bad about because we seldom have to work with that issue, and when we do, even Penelope has to go look the stuff up and refresh herself. Conflict of laws is not real fun sometimes, either. But like I said, we don’t usually work with those issues, so maybe some of the difficulty is just not doing it enough.
Sooo, like I said I don’t think I am totally stupid on the law or anything. I helped a relative in his law school competition two years ago, and he said I was the only person who could explain the issue to him to where it made sense. Plus, I gave him a one liner to throw out to the judges which caused them to laugh their a$$e$ off, and he and his partner beat the other team.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ah; a respected member of the bar. Then, of course, you are familiar with the value of anecdotal evidence, true? Thanks for your contribution.
the above was to eagle
“Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against OBAMA Administration in Immigration Case”
There. Fixed that for you, JT.
Good job!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Exactly!
There is no “Obama Administration” to be ruled against.
Asks Scooter Libby even when it’s entrapment that case started with the previous administration and like the current budget belongs to them until it’s finished. With that out of the way what’s the hold up besides Hawaii on getting the final decision on the current situation. That decision will give a clear cut legal foundation for a clear immigration policy instead of the mish mash and will have to address national defense issues as well. All in just a few months.
When Scalia’s family came into America at Ellis Island in NY they told the officials that their name was Scalia. Actually it was Corleone. They came from a town named Scalia. No problem.
John Podesta’s family came from Podesta, Italy. His last name was something else.
Immigration officials at Ellis Island routinely stamped paperwork on Italian immigrants with the letters WOP for With Out Papers. checked them for TB etc and that’s how the term wop came into being. The term kike came from the the stamp for people of the Jewish culture it’s yiddish for the Star of David. Not much PC back in those days.
You just testified to the intended outcome of the Constitution;
majority rule in conjunction with freedom of speech, thought, religion,
press, assembly and every other conceivable natural or “god-given”
freedom and right per the 9th amendment.
Etiquette, manners, politeness and morality are not law.
The minority does not rule (affirmative action is unconstitutional).
Discrimination is the first step of freedom.
People must adapt to the outcome of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to People.
They must know something us ordinary people don’t. I would be interested in seeing what impact the appeals court has. And yes..the headline should include Obama..should it not?
The court ruled against the present administration. Incidentally, the case was not even argued until April of 2017.
Since it now goes back to the 6th Circuit to decide the impact of false statement on refugee status being granted, it seems like the right and easy call to me.
And what would that call be? Easily speaking.
Was whether or not the guy being in the Serb military, significant to the application?
I guess it could be, if she was seeking refugee status.
I agree with SCOTUS but on a simpler basis. I’m not an attorney but it seems to me that there are some serious Due process concerns here. It should not be up to bureaucrats to determine what rights people have.
Should the caption be “Rules 9-0 against Obama/Trump Administration”? Just saying.
You beat me to it! Of course that is what the headline should read. But sometimes there seems to be this compulsion to make a Negative Headline about Trump, regardless of the facts.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Rules, who needs rules? Everyone should just do whatever they want.
It seems harsh decision by the administration. But try falsifying a form for a Bank, your employer, IRS, etc.
It never goes well.
But to be criminally convicted generally requires a showing that the false statements were material.
The law convicts the perpetrator.
Why don’t the courts?
Because the Imperial Judiciary has usurped the power of the People and their legislative branch.
The judicial branch has NO authority to legislate or modify legislation.
The judicial branch must be disabused of its notion of being a “co-equal” branch of government.
The judicial branch must remand ambiguous law to the legislative branch.
Many judges and justices must be impeached for usurpation as a crime of high office.