In this article, we will explore the topic of Barton v. Barr in depth, analyzing its origins, its impact on today's society, and possible implications for the future. Barton v. Barr is a topic that has captured the attention of experts and the general public, generating debate and reflection in different areas. Over the years, Barton v. Barr has evolved and adapted to changing circumstances, influencing entire generations and leaving its mark on history. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we will address various perspectives on Barton v. Barr, from its relevance in the past to its relevance in the contemporary world, thus providing a comprehensive vision that allows us to better understand its importance and role in today's society.
Barton v. Barr | |
---|---|
Argued November 4, 2019 Decided April 23, 2020 | |
Full case name | Andre Martello Barton, Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General |
Docket no. | 18-725 |
Citations | 590 U.S. ___ (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
Holding | |
The court held that for purposes of cancellation-of-removal eligibility, a §1182(a)(2) offense committed during the initial seven years of residence does not need to be one of the offenses of removal. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
8 U.S. Code § 1182 |
Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. __ (2020) is a Supreme Court of the United States ruling which upheld a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that permanent residents could be rendered "inadmissible" to the United States for an offense after the initial seven years of residence under the Reed Amendment.
Andre Martello Barton was born in Jamaica admitted to the United States in May, 1989. In 1992, he became a lawful green-card resident of the U.S. However, he was found guilty of criminal damage to property, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-106) and violations of Georgia's Controlled Substances Act.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determined that Barton could be deported for these offenses. Barton filed an appeal to cancel his deportation to the United States Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) as he had been a permanent resident for over seven years.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the majority opinion, ruled that DHS could deport Barton stating "the immigration laws enacted by Congress do not allow cancellation of removal when a lawful permanent resident has amassed a criminal record of this kind."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that as Barton had already been admitted, the Government must prove he is deportable rather than just inadmissible.