Archives

Supreme Court Halts Immigration Deferred Action

The Supreme Court split 4-4 in United States v. Texas on whether the President’s deferred action immigration program violates federal law. As a result, the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide temporary stay of the program remains in effect. Next, a trial court may rule on whether the program should be permanently stayed.    Continue reading

 

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Important Immigration Case Today

It was a different crowd today at the Supreme Court. The number of children on the courthouse steps may have exceeded the number of adults, and the voices on the microphones were speaking English and Spanish.

United States v. Texas is about different things for different people. For some it is about keeping families together, for others executive overreach, and for about half of the states it is about “standing” to sue the federal government.   Continue reading

 

SCOTUS to Decide Immigration Deferred Action Case

In an already action packed term the Supreme Court has definitively secured this term’s place in history but agreeing to decide whether the President’s deferred action immigration program violates federal law or is unconstitutional. The Court will issue an opinion in United States v. Texas by the end of June 2016.

 The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program allows certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years and either came here as children or already have children who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents to lawfully stay and work temporarily in the United States. About 5 million people are affected.

 Twenty six states sued the United States and won before the Fifth Circuit.

 The Court will decide four legal issues in this case. Continue reading

 

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Immigration Case

This morning, SupremeCourt2the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Frederick County v. Santos, No. 13-706, a case involving whether local officials may arrest persons for immigration violations that we discussed here. See additional coverage from The Frederick News-Post here.

(Photo courtesy of Flickr by Mark Fischer, creative-commons license, no changes made).

 

Can State and Local Police Arrest for Immigration Violations?

That is the question presented in SCOTUSblog’s Petition of the Day.Supreme Court3 The Fourth Circuit ruled in Santos v. Frederick County Bd. of Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013), that

absent express direction or authorization by federal statute or federal officials, state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest an individual solely based on known or suspected civil violations of federal immigration law.

Frederick County’s cert petition argues that this creates a circuit split that the Court should resolve: Continue reading

 

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:SCT pillars

Second Circuit

Third Circuit

 

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Immigration Housing Cases

Last year, this blog discussed three recent courts of appeals decisions involving local-housing regulations aimed at a person’s immigration status. DSC_0132

This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in two of the cases,  Farmers Branch v. Villas at Parkside and Hazleton v. Lozano.

Both decisions had preempted local ordinances.

Image courtesy of Flickr by prathap ramamurthy (creative-commons license, no changes made).

 

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Happy New Year to all of our readers.

Last week was a slow one for the courts. The only significant action for local governments came from the Ninth Circuit:

 

 

Regulating Illegal Immigration With Local Housing Ordinances

Local government regulation of immigration through housing ordinances has divided the courts.

Local government regulation of immigration through housing ordinances has divided the courts.

Can a local government prohibit the leasing of housing to persons who entered the United States illegally?

Since June, three federal courts of appeals have tackled that difficult question—and reached different results.

The decisions present a range of perspectives on whether local housing ordinances “conflict” with federal law or intrude upon a “field” reserved to the federal government. They highlight the uncertain contours of the preemption doctrine—and demonstrate the risk facing any local government that regulates in this space.

Continue reading