Archives

Is the Third Travel Ban Likely to be Reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Posted in Case Notes Commentary Roundup on October 20, 2017 By Lann McIntyre

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way the answer will be yes he told the Senate Judiciary Committee shortly after two federal district courts temporarily prevented the third travel ban from going into effect.

The president’s March 6 executive order (the second travel ban) prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June, the Supreme Court temporarily prevented the ban from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United State” until the Court could hear the case on the merits in early October.

The second travel ban was set to expire on September 24. That day the President issued a presidential proclamation (the third travel ban) indefinitely banning immigration from six countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Persons from some of these countries and Venezuela also may not receive particular non-immigrant visas. Following the presidential proclamation, the Supreme Court dismissed the case challenging the second travel ban.

Shortly before the third travel ban was supposed to go into effect federal district courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued temporary injunctions blocking it.

Continue reading →

Travel Ban Headed to the Supreme Court?

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on June 2, 2017 By Lann McIntyre

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision temporarily preventing the President’s revised travel ban from going into effect. Numerous states supported both side as amici in the litigation. Numerous local governments supported the challengers.

The President’s first executive order prevented people from seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. The Ninth Circuit temporarily struck it down concluding it likely violated the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, non-immigrant visa holders, and refugees.

The President’s second executive order prevents people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days but only applies to new visa applicants and allows for case-by-case waivers. Continue reading →

Supreme Court Halts Immigration Deferred Action

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on June 23, 2016 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

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

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on April 18, 2016 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

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

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on January 25, 2016 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

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

Posted in Uncategorized on March 24, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

This morning, the 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?

Posted in Case Notes on March 12, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

That is the question presented in SCOTUSblog’s Petition of the Day. 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

Posted in Monday Morning Review on March 10, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

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

Second Circuit

C.F. v. New York City Department of Education, No. 11-5003 (Mar. 4, 2014) (plaintiffs are entitled to tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

Third Circuit

Galarza v. Szalczyk, No. 12-3991 (Mar. 4, 2014) (immigration detainers do not and — under the Tenth Amendment — cannot compel a state or local law enforcement agency to Continue reading →

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Immigration Housing Cases

Posted in Case Notes on March 3, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

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

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

Posted in Monday Morning Review on January 5, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

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:

The court granted rehearing en banc in Valenzuela v. Maricopa County, No. 11-16847 (Jan. 2, 2014). The case involves the constitutionality of Arizona’s Proposition 100, which provides that Arizona state courts may not set bail “[f]or serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.” A Ninth-Circuit panel had previously upheld the measure, over a dissent from Judge Fisher.
The court decided Alliance for Property Rights v. City of Idaho Falls, No. 12-35800 (Dec. 31, 2013). The court determined that the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho, may not exercise eminent domain outside of the City’s limits for the purpose of constructing electric-transmission lines.
The court also amended an earlier decision in Wagner v. Maricopa County, No. 10-15501 (Dec. 30, 2013), which concerned the reasonableness of jail officers’ search of a pretrial detainee.

Regulating Illegal Immigration With Local Housing Ordinances

Posted in Case Notes on September 10, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

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 →