Symposium: SCOTUS hears Moncrieffe v. Holder

A single Supreme Court decision can alter the legal landscape for decades, but immigration cases tend to fly below the radar. To help readers stay up-to-date on what’s before the Court, today launches its inaugural online symposium on Supreme Court crImmigration cases.


A group of well-informed, passionate crImmigration experts have agreed to share their unique insight of Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11-702, scheduled for oral arguments tomorrow (October 10). In Moncrieffe, the Court is expected to decide whether possession with intent to distribute constitutes a drug trafficking type of aggravated felony even where it’s possible that the noncitizen was convicted of possessing such a small amount of marijuana that it would qualify as a misdemeanor under federal law rather than as a felony.


To provide the most comprehensive coverage possible, the symposium begins before oral arguments, includes coverage of the arguments that actually occur, and extends to analyses of the Court’s decision. Today, Claudia Valenzuela, the Associate Director of Litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, along with Sarah Rose Weinman, an Equal Justice Works Fellow at NIJC, and Patty Corrales, a former DHS attorney now in private practice in Los Angeles, explain what’s at stake when the Court hears arguments tomorrow. Tomorrow, Alina Das, the Co-Director of NYU Law School's Immigrant Rights Clinic and a professor there, will delve into the real-world impact of the categorical approach question that's at the heart of the case.

Later this week Mark Noferi, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and the author of exciting articles on immigration detention and appointed counsel in removal proceedings, and Cathy Potter, an immigration attorney with extensive experience representing individuals facing removal due to criminal histories, will recap Wednesday’s arguments. And whenever the Court issues a decision, you can expect to hear from Maritza Reyes, a law professor at Florida A&M University who has written impressively and compassionately about the impact of crime-based removal on LPRs, as well as Ms. Valenzuela.


Collectively, the symposium’s contributors represent the breadth of legal advocacy—direct representation, impact litigation, and academic inquiry—and bring to bear the varied experiences of immigration lawyers throughout the country. I am confident that their combined efforts will go a long way to shed much needed insight into the rapid evolution of crImmigration law.

Let the conversation begin:


What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.

  • 10/9/2012 10:36 AM Pradeep Parashar wrote:
    Thanks for informing us about the long awaited discussion ot rather hearing in the Supreme Court of the United States. I truly hope it will justify those who are convicted of crime(s) in the Act. of God but also depending on the Act of Mercy or the true American heart recognized by the Congress. I am anxiously waiting for a real action tommorow on the 10th of October, 2012.
    Thank you to keeping me updated on Crimmigration rules and policy.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.