COURT GRANTS REPRIEVE TO IMMIGRANTS

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court offered hope today to many immigrants who face
the threat of deportation because they have been found guilty of crimes.

In 5-to-4 decisions that addressed two cases from New York and Connecticut
and will probably have an effect far beyond those states, the justices
ruled that such immigrants cannot be deported without a court hearing
despite 1996 legislation to the contrary.

"We agree with the petitioners that leaving aliens without a forum for
adjudicating claims such as those raised in this case would raise serious
constitutional questions," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

The majority upheld the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, in Manhattan, which had ruled that the immigrants could not be
thrown out of the United States without a court review of the deportation
orders for possible exceptions.

The two laws in question were passed by Congress while feelings against
immigrants -- especially illegal immigrants suspected of committing serious
crimes -- ran high in parts of the country. The laws were intended to make
it easier for the United States to get rid of dangerous troublemakers by
sending them back to their homelands without seemingly endless paperwork
and court delays.

But in the opinion of many people who have followed immigration issues, the
1996 legislation has had unintended and often wrenching consequences. The
biggest effect has been not on illegal immigrants but on immigrants who are
in the United States legally, like the four involved in today's rulings.
Moreover, some immigrants affected by the legislation have close relatives
who are American citizens, as do the four whose cases were at issue today.

The four immigrants are Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid and Fazila
Khan, who came to the United States some years ago from the Dominican
Republic, Mexico and Guyana and were convicted of violating drug laws in
New York State, and Enrico St. Cyr, who came to the United States from
Haiti and committed a drug-law violation in Connecticut.

All served their sentences and, had they been American citizens, would have
been allowed to resume their places in society. But because they were
guilty of "aggravated felonies," as defined in the 1996 legislation, they
were subject to deportation, even though their wrongdoing predated the
legislation.

Before 1996, some aliens facing deportation could seek a waiver from the
United States Attorney General's office. If the alien had lived a
law-abiding life after serving his sentence, and if he had close ties to
the United States, he had a good chance to get such a waiver. But the
waiver chance was erased in 1996 for those aliens guilty of "aggravated
felonies," like many drug offenses.

The laws at issue are the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both
of which mandated far harsher treatment of immigrants who commit crimes on
American soil.

The justices in the majority said they were also troubled by the
retroactive effects of the 1996 legislation. They conceded that,
constitutionally, Congress has the power to pass legislation with a
retroactive effect. But they said a statute should not be applied
retroactively "absent a clear indication from Congress that it intended
such a result," an indication the majority did not clearly discern.

Joining Justice Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. Justice
Scalia asserted that the majority had somehow found ambiguity "in the
utterly clear language" that Congress had used in moving to block the
courts from reviewing deportation orders in cases like the ones at hand.

The opinions in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 00-767,
and Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 00-1011,
can be read on the High Court's web site: www.supremecourtus.gov.