What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/dukjppsid13 and id is 1 raw text is:
SESSIONS V. DIMAYA: VAGUENESS
DOCTRINE & DEPORTATION
STATUTES
MATTHEW GIBBONS*
INTRODUCTION
Through a convoluted legal pathway a nonviolent crime can be
classified as a violent crime, transported into civil law, and result in the
deportation of someone who has been legally present in the United
States for nearly twenty years. Such is the case in Sessions v. Dimaya.1
Dimaya presents the Supreme Court with the chance to correct that
injustice by (again) holding deportation to be a penalty akin to
criminal punishment, and by recognizing the applicability of
vagueness doctrine to statutes resulting in deportation. This
commentary argues that would be the proper outcome in Dimaya for
three reasons. First, the doctrine of stare decisis requires it. Second,
this outcome conforms with the principles underlying the doctrine of
unconstitutional vagueness. Third and finally, failure to extend that
doctrine-in the form of the criminal vagueness standard-to this
case would appear politically motivated and inconsistent. The
appearance of extra-judicial political influence reduces the legitimacy,
and thereby the effectiveness, of the judiciary.
I. FACTS
Respondent James Dimaya was admitted to the United States and
became a lawful permanent resident in 1992.2 Mr. Dimaya pleaded no
contest to,3 and was convicted of, first-degree residential burglary' in
Copyright @ 2017 Matthew Gibbons.
* J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law, Class of 2019.
1. Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 (U.S. 2017)
2. Brief for Respondent at 5, Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 (U.S. 2016) [hereinafter
Brief for Respondent].
3. Id.
4. Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 31
(2016), reh'g granted sub nom. Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 (U.S. 2017).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/dukjppsid13&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)