U.S. Supreme Court Case Challenges Drug, Deportation Law

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Honduran native Jose Padilla in Padilla v. Kentucky today [pdf], deciding that his right to counsel was violated when his lawyer told him pleading guilty to drug possession would not lead to deportation. Previously, two convictions for drug possession were the equivalent of drug trafficking if you're not a natural born citizen, and could lead to deportation even for legal residents. The law also prohibited courts from granting any exceptions. This interpretation of the law had already been rejected by four judicial circuits, including New York's, but approved by courts in Louisiana and Texas.

The New York Times follows the story of a Long Island man who spent three years in a Texas jail, fighting deportation, because of a 2007 possession of one marijuana cigarette. Jerry Lemaine had been caught with marijuana as a teenager, but the case had been dismissed. This time, his lawyer advised him to plead guilty and take the $100 fine. But Lemaine, a legal resident who left Haiti at age three, was accused of drug trafficking, and was sent to jail in Texas. There, a judge said the violations made him a “recidivist felon” ineligible for bond, even though his first offense had been dismissed. He spent three years in Texas before returning to New York on suspended release.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana and Texas, said it would wait for the Supreme Court decision before ruling, but Lemaine could go before the same Texas judge and could still be deported. However, deportations to Haiti have been suspended since the earthquake, so Lemaine would most likely spend more detention time in Texas.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jaya Saxena in News on March 31, 2010 3:03 PM

Comments [rss]

katiebaker

My mistake about being transfered to Texas after being caught in l.i. but he still had to of been aware of the risk he was taking just by possessing drugs and not being a citizen.

rasputinsghost

you are aware that residents of the US have constitutional protections right

and you are either a troll or some insane, mentally broken social conservative if you think THREE YEARS is a logical sentence for possessing a SINGLE JOINT

people who have KILLED OTHER PEOPLE WHILE DRIVING DRUNK have gotten off easier. consider.

Fadlo K. Shell

Sure...because the thing at the very front of every person's mind every waking moment of their life is their citizenship status.

I'm getting really sick and disturbed from all this anti-immigrant fervor. Clueless Americans think they're special just because of where their mothers happened to be when they squirted them out.

katiebaker

I think if you're here illegally, break the law and get arrested you should be deported. As for the guy who got locked up in Texas as a legal resident but not a citizen he should have been well aware of the risk he was taking in possessing drugs in a highly anti-immigration state like Texas when he was aware of his resident status.

wmlawman

Did you read it? He was caught in NY and transported by the immigration authorities to Texas. Which is the problem, because under the law for NY, the judges could take more into account beyond the conviction, unlike the judge in Texas.

potsmoker

ACD

potsmoker

this story is sad. the first offense was an SCD so there was no conviction and no way to expunge his record.

either way, sitting in jail for 3 yrs for a joint is ridiculous.

everyone look up what happened to the german BLACK babies from post ww2 army bases. middle aged english speaking american black adults getting deported to Germany for the mistake of being born there as a war baby.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,651989,00.html

wmlawman

You realize the two things mentioned are only related in so much as they talk about immigration law, right?

Padilla's case had nothing to do with the interpretation of the law or the circuit split as noted by the NYT. This case had to do with whether an attorney had to advise someone of their immigration consequences. The Court has said yes to that.

Lemaine (the person the NYT article is focused on) is awaiting the decision on whether or not judges are allowed to make exceptions and take a holistic approach - that case is being ARGUED now. The beef here is that some circuits allow this, while others do not.

Ishtar

If he has been here since 3 and his father is a citizen, where is his citizenship? I have no idea how this citizenship thing works, but I thought your becoming a citizen made your children eligible if they are in the country with you and under your care.

ItchyGoiter

"Jerry Lemaine had been caught with marijuana as a teenager, but the case had been dismissed. This time, his lawyer advised him to plead guilty and take the $100 fine."

...

"There, a judge said the violations made him a “recidivist felon” ineligible for bond, even though his first offense had been dismissed."

You never mentioned a second offense. This paragraph makes no sense whatosever.