Assignment Task:
A native of the Philippines, James Garcia Dimaya is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. After his second conviction for first-degree burglary in California, the government sought to deport him. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for the deportation of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes "a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." The INA defined a "crime of violence" as "any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense."
Dimaya argued that the definition of "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague and did not provide clear guidance in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and ultimately agreed with him. In order to determine if a defendant committed a crime of violence, the courts evaluated the overall nature of the crime and determined whether "the ordinary case" of the offense posed the required level of risk. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that the definition was unconstitutionally vague and allowed for inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation by the courts. When the Supreme Court finds a part of a law to be unconstitutional, it is essentially "thrown out" and the legislature has to revise the statute.
Question: Is the federal immigration law unconstitutionally vague?