Justices will hear Ohio appeal over purging voter rolls
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether Ohio wrongfully purged eligible voters from the state's registration list.
The justices said they will hear an appeal from state officials defending the process against challengers who say it's illegal.
Civil liberties groups had challenged the state's program for removing thousands of people from voter rolls based on their failure to vote in recent elections. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled last year that the process violates the National Voter Registration Act.
Ohio officials argue that the process used by Ohio for more than 20 years is constitutional and fully complies with state and federal laws.
Groups challenging the practice said Ohio was unfairly disenfranchising eligible Ohio voters.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the New York-based public advocacy group Demos sued Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted over the practice last year.
Following the appeals court ruling, a federal district court entered an injunction for the November 2016 presidential election that allowed more than 7,500 Ohio voters to cast a ballot.
Freda Levenson, Legal Director of the ACLU of Ohio, said purging voters simply because they have exercised their right not to vote is a form of voter suppression.
"We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the correct decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and will ultimately ensure that eligible Ohio voters may not be stricken from the rolls," she said.
Justices side with police in California shooting case
WASHINGTON (AP) - A unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with sheriff's deputies in a legal dispute stemming from 2010, when a couple of bystanders were shot while the California deputies searched for a wanted man.
The justices overturned an award of $4 million in damages to the couple and ordered a lower court to take another look at whether the deputies could be held liable for the shooting.
Deputies were searching for a parolee when they entered the backyard shack in Lancaster, north of Los Angeles. Seeing an armed man, they fired shots that seriously wounded him and his pregnant girlfriend.
But the man wasn't the suspect they were searching for, and it turned out he was carrying a BB gun. A federal appeals court ruled that the deputies were liable because they provoked a violent confrontation by entering the shack without a warrant.
But Justice Samuel Alito said such a "provocation rule" is not compatible with excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. If the officers were reasonable in using force to defend themselves, Alito said, a court should not go back in time to see whether the incident was provoked.
Deputies had been told before they entered the cluttered backyard that a man and woman were staying in a shack there, according to court records. When they opened the door, one of the officers saw a man holding a gun, shouted "gun" and two officers fired 15 shots.
The man, Angel Mendez, said he had picked up his BB gun at the time officers entered in order to move it. As a result of the shooting, Mendez's leg had to be amputated below the knee. His girlfriend was shot in the back.
Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, which was argued before he joined the high court.
Justices side with Mexican immigrant in deportation case
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Mexican immigrant who faced deportation after he was convicted of having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend.
The justices ruled unanimously that while Juan Esquivel-Quintana committed a crime under California law, his conduct did not violate federal immigration law. The ruling allows him to remain in the U.S.
The opinion comes as the Trump administration steps up enforcement of the nation's immigration laws, including deporting those who commit crimes. Immigration arrests have increased 38 percent this year, compared with a similar period last year.
California law makes it a crime to have sex with anyone under 18 if the age difference is more than three years. That applied to Esquivel-Quintana, who had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend before and after his 21st birthday.
But Esquivel-Quintana said his conduct would have been legal under federal law and the laws of 43 other states that are less strict. The government argued that courts should defer to immigration officials in interpreting laws that are vague.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires the victim to be younger than 16. Since Esquivel-Quintana's conduct did not constitute sexual abuse under federal immigration laws, Thomas said the state conviction did not count as an aggravated felony and he could not be deported.
Esquivel-Quintana moved to the United States with his family when he was 12 and became a lawful permanent resident. He served 90 days in jail after pleading no contest to the California charges involving sex with a minor.
He later moved to Michigan, where federal officials began deportation proceedings. Immigration officials said he was convicted of "sexual abuse of a minor" - a deportable offense under federal immigration laws.
An immigration judge said he should be deported and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. A divided federal appeals court affirmed that ruling.
Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the case, which was argued before he joined the Supreme Court.
Published: Thu, Jun 01, 2017
