INS v. St. Cyr: The Campaign to Preserve Court Review and Stop Retroactive Application of Deportation Laws
Files
Description
On April 24, 1996, the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The bill was prompted by early hunches that noncitizen terrorists were responsible for the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City the previous year. But the discovery that an American was responsible for the bombing did nothing to stop the bill’s new rules for noncitizens who could be labeled as terrorists. Nor had this discovery prevented Congress from adopting provisions that had nothing to do with terrorism or the death penalty. Section 440 of AEDPA—entitled “Criminal Alien Removal”—dramatically altered the rights of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with criminal convictions. Instead of having a right to a hearing under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the equities of deportation, section 440(d) subjected these long time residents to mandatory deportation. Furthermore, section 440(a) appeared to cut off judicial oversight of how the law was applied. LPRs faced mandatory deportation without review by any court. Most of the people affected by this law had no idea that it had passed and that it threatened their families. Enrico St. Cyr, whose case would later reach the Supreme Court, was beginning a five year sentence for a drug offense. Junior Earl Pottinger was looking forward to being released from jail after serving a few months for a drug offense. Many others had long ago finished serving any criminal sentence. Jesus Collado was running his restaurant in New York City, twenty two years after having served a probationary sentence for having a sexual relationship as a teenager with his underage girlfriend. Danny Kozuba was working installing kitchens, and awaiting word on the government’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of a grant of relief from deportation 280 in a case arising out of convictions for drug possession. All were LPRs who either had long forgotten their brush with the criminal law or assumed that any deportation consequences would be measured against their individual equities. Over the next five years the lives of these people and thousands of others would be dramatically affected by AEDPA and similar provisions enacted five months later in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of Immigrant of 1996 (IIRIRA). INS v. St. Cyr is the story of their ordeal and that of thousands of other LPRs. It is also the story of a remarkable litigation campaign to preserve judicial review and prevent the new laws from being applied retroactively. By 2001, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in St. Cyr finding jurisdiction and ruling against retroactive application of new bars to relief from deportation, thousands had been deported and would not reap the benefit of the decision. But for those who managed to prevent their deportation, St. Cyr provided a chance to pick up lives that had been ravaged by five years of litigation and uncertainty. St. Cyr, like many immigration decisions, did not rule squarely on constitutional grounds. Instead the Court based both its jurisdictional holding and its ruling on the merits on “clear statement” rules. Thus, St. Cyr presents a case study of the role that the litigation of statutory claims (against a strong backdrop of constitutional avoidance), can play in achieving change. But it also shows the limits of such a campaign, in the absence of class-action procedures to stop deportations from continuing while advocates lay the groundwork for Supreme Court review. In the end, St Cyr is both a remarkable story of the potential of a well-orchestrated litigation campaign and a sober reminder of how difficult it is to protect immigrants from harsh and illegal deportation laws and legislation that curbs access to the courts.
Source Publication
Immigration Stories
Source Editors/Authors
David A. Martin, Peter H. Schuck
Publication Date
2005
Recommended Citation
Morawetz, Nancy, "INS v. St. Cyr: The Campaign to Preserve Court Review and Stop Retroactive Application of Deportation Laws" (2005). Faculty Chapters. 1995.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/1995
