Court sides with administration
on immigration case dealing
with green card holders
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in an immigration case dealing with the government's power over green card holders accused of crimes.
The 6-3 decision centers on an immigration officers' 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime.
Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security under then-President Barack Obama an easier path to removal after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.
The high court disagreed. "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the decision to put Lau on immigration parole effectively sentenced him to "immigration limbo" before he'd been convicted of any crime.
"I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," she wrote in the dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues.
The liberal group Alliance for Justice echoed that concern, saying the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards.
But Advancing American Freedom, a group founded by former Republican Vice President Mike Pence, called it an important case to allow the removal of people who "abuse the privilege of being granted lawful permanent resident status."
The decision comes as the high court considers a series of immigration-related issues against the backdrop of President Donald Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown, though this case started before Trump took office.
His administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to put a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green-card holder, on immigration parole. Federal attorneys urged the court to take an expansive view of executive authority over immigration.
The court is also considering cases over Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, potentially revive a restrictive asylum policy and end temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters in their homelands.
Rastafari man can't sue Louisiana prison
officials who cut his dreadlocks, court rules
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred a former Louisiana inmate from suing prison officials who cut off his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafari religious beliefs.
The justices condemned what happened to the former inmate, Damon Landor. But they ruled that a federal law designed to protect the religious rights of inmates does not permit lawsuits for money damages against individuals even when rights are violated.
The high court, in a 6-3 decision, agreed with lower courts that without exception had ruled that the law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, can't be used to hold those who violate inmates' rights financially responsible.
The justices refused to apply the rationale from their decision in 2020 that allowed Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI's no-fly list under a sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Justice Department, which argued against the plaintiffs in the no-fly list case in President Donald Trump's first Republican administration, had sided with Landor.
Nothing in the law dealing with prisoners' religious rights authorizes lawsuits against individual officers, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that state prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law. "It is not often that a real-life incident so clearly illustrates Congress's reasons for adopting legislation, or the Constitution's wisdom in enabling it," Jackson wrote in an opinion that was joined by her two liberal colleagues.
No one defended what happened to Landor during his five-month prison term in 2020. When he entered the prison system, he carried a copy of an appeals court ruling in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violated the federal law.
At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term.
A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show.
Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages.
Louisiana wrote that "the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur."
The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents.
Court kills suit claiming Cisco's
technology helped China
persecute Falun Gong members
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted tech giant Cisco's bid to shut down a lawsuit claiming that the company's technology was used to persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China.
The justices ruled that American courts are the wrong forum for the suits, rejecting arguments made by the plaintiffs that the suits should go forward under the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), first enacted in 1991.
The decision was the latest to rule against plaintiffs seeking to use U.S. courts as a venue to seek justice over the acts of foreign governments, especially those that took place abroad.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her majority opinion that the justices "close the door" that the court slightly opened in 2004 when it suggested that some human-rights claims might be viable under the ATS. "In truth, this class is a null set," Barrett wrote, while acknowledging such cases "frequently involve heinous and inhumane acts."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court "closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS."
Falun Gong members had sought to overcome the court's skepticism by arguing that a substantial portion of Cisco's activities involving China took place in the United States.
An Associated Press investigation last year showed that American tech companies, to a large degree, designed and built China's surveillance state, encouraged by both Republican and Democratic administrations, even as activists warned such tools were being used to quash dissent, persecute religious groups and target minorities. Last month, AP won the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for its stories.
In 2008, documents leaked to the press showed Cisco saw the "Golden Shield," China's internet censorship effort, as a sales opportunity. The company quoted a Chinese official calling the Falun Gong an "evil cult." A Cisco presentation reviewed by the AP from the same year said its products could identify over 90% of Falun Gong material on the web.
Other presentations reviewed by the AP show that Cisco represented Falun Gong material as a "threat" and built out a national information system to track Falun Gong believers. In 2011, Falun Gong members sued Cisco, alleging the company tailored technology for Beijing that it knew would be used to track, detain and torture believers.
At arguments in April, Sotomayor said Cisco "knew that those people will be tortured." A lawyer for the company said, "Cisco vigorously disputes those allegations."
Justices OK Exxon Mobil lawsuit over Cuban
property seized by Fidel Castro's government
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban state-owned companies in American courts over property on the island nation that was seized after Fidel Castro took power.
The 6-3 decision was the second in as many months in favor of U.S. owners of Cuban property that was confiscated by the Communist government more than 65 years ago.
The outcome in the two cases could be an additional lever for the Trump administration to exert pressure on Cuba, which is already being squeezed by a U.S. oil embargo.
At issue was whether the 1996 law known as Helms-Burton removes the shield from lawsuits in U.S. courts that typically cover foreign countries and state-owned businesses. The justices reversed a lower-court ruling that found that the Cuban state-owned companies are immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts.
Exxon Mobil is seeking compensation for the confiscation of assets owned by subsidiaries of Standard Oil, Exxon Mobil's predecessor, including more than 100 service stations and an oil refinery.
Last month, the court ruled in another case involving confiscated property in Cuba, reviving claims by the U.S. company that operated docks in Havana against four cruise lines that brought tourists to Cuba during the brief thaw in relations during the Obama administration. That case turned on the same section of Helms-Burton allowing lawsuits over seized property.
Congress passed the law in response to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
Title III of the law allows Americans to sue almost any company that engages in commercial activity or benefits from property confiscated by Cuba's government.
Before the first Trump administration, every president had suspended the provision because of objections from U.S. allies doing business in Cuba and the effect on future negotiated settlements between the U.S. and Cuba.
But Trump lifted the suspension in 2019, and Exxon Mobil filed its lawsuit the same day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that it "would make little sense" if the law allowed the president to decide whether suits can proceed against Cuban interests while also protecting them.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for the three liberals that the 1996 law simply contains no provision eliminating the sovereign immunity shield.
The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, an arm of the Justice Department, said in 1969 that the value of Exxon Mobil's property in Cuba is $71.6 million, plus 6% annual interest beginning in 1960. That would be worth more than $1 billion today, Kavanaugh wrote.
In addition, the commission found that nearly 6,000 individuals and businesses held claims worth $1.9 billion, before adding in interest or damages.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban state-owned companies in American courts over property on the island nation that was seized after Fidel Castro took power.
The 6-3 decision was the second in as many months in favor of U.S. owners of Cuban property that was confiscated by the Communist government more than 65 years ago.
The outcome in the two cases could be an additional lever for the Trump administration to exert pressure on Cuba, which is already being squeezed by a U.S. oil embargo.
At issue was whether the 1996 law known as Helms-Burton removes the shield from lawsuits in U.S. courts that typically cover foreign countries and state-owned businesses. The justices reversed a lower-court ruling that found that the Cuban state-owned companies are immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts.
Exxon Mobil is seeking compensation for the confiscation of assets owned by subsidiaries of Standard Oil, Exxon Mobil's predecessor, including more than 100 service stations and an oil refinery.
Last month, the court ruled in another case involving confiscated property in Cuba, reviving claims by the U.S. company that operated docks in Havana against four cruise lines that brought tourists to Cuba during the brief thaw in relations during the Obama administration. That case turned on the same section of Helms-Burton allowing lawsuits over seized property.
Congress passed the law in response to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
Title III of the law allows Americans to sue almost any company that engages in commercial activity or benefits from property confiscated by Cuba's government.
Before the first Trump administration, every president had suspended the provision because of objections from U.S. allies doing business in Cuba and the effect on future negotiated settlements between the U.S. and Cuba.
But Trump lifted the suspension in 2019, and Exxon Mobil filed its lawsuit the same day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that it "would make little sense" if the law allowed the president to decide whether suits can proceed against Cuban interests while also protecting them.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for the three liberals that the 1996 law simply contains no provision eliminating the sovereign immunity shield.
The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, an arm of the Justice Department, said in 1969 that the value of Exxon Mobil's property in Cuba is $71.6 million, plus 6% annual interest beginning in 1960. That would be worth more than $1 billion today, Kavanaugh wrote.
In addition, the commission found that nearly 6,000 individuals and businesses held claims worth $1.9 billion, before adding in interest or damages.
