Washington – The Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed whether foreigners should be deported after being convicted of relatively minor drug crimes.
At issue in the two cases – the first to be argued in the Supreme Court’s new term that began Monday – is whether federal or state drug laws should dictate prison sentences and deportations.
The cases concern two Mexicans convicted of drug crimes that were felonies under state laws but would be misdemeanors under federal statutes.
Reymundo Toledo-Flores was convicted of possessing less than a gram of cocaine in 2002, a felony in Texas.
Jose Antonio Lopez pleaded guilty in 1997 to aiding and abetting possession of cocaine, a felony in South Dakota.
Lopez, who had lived and worked legally in the United States for 12 years before his conviction, was ordered deported in 1998 after an immigration judge found that his drug conviction constituted an “aggravated felony” under federal immigration laws.
An immigration appeals judge and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Toledo-Flores objects that his state drug conviction was classified as an “aggravated felony” and later used to raise the penalty for a separate conviction of illegally entering the United States.
Justices questioned whether Toledo-Flores’ case challenging his sentence even belonged before the high court, since he has already served two years in jail and no U.S. officials are supervising him in Mexico.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the cases, expected by July, could have widespread effects for thousands of immigrants facing deportation for relatively minor crimes. For Lopez, it could mean a chance to return to the United States, where he has a wife and two children.
