CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

Like many federal judges before him, United States District Judge William H. Orrick of California's Northern District has enjoined the federal government from enforcing one of President Donald Trump's executive orders. Trump's Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," has suffered the same fate as his travel ban, both the original and the revised version.

So why was the latest order ruled unconstitutional? You can see Judge Orrick's reasoning below.

President Donald Trump's second attempt at barring entry into the United States from Muslim-majority countries has been put on hold, with a federal judge in Hawaii issuing a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the travel ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's ruling comes two months after another federal court in Washington blocked Trump's initial executive order on immigration, a decision which was upheld by a unanimous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just a few weeks ago.

Judge Watson's opinion was not kind to President Trump or his surrogates, who are quoted extensively as evidence that the ban was specifically targeted toward Muslims. You can read the full opinion below.

President Trump has issued a revised executive order addressing travel and immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. The new order comes less than a month after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously blocked his previous executive order on the issue.

While the latest executive order is designed to avoid the same political and legal issues as its predecessor, it retains many of the same travel restrictions. So what's new in the new travel ban, and will it be any more palatable to protestors, politicians, and, most importantly, the courts? You can read it for yourself below.

Making headlines across the country tonight, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower federal district court's order, issued last week, blocking President Trump's controversial immigration executive order, commonly referred to as the "Muslim ban," from taking effect nationwide. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a rare unanimous per curium decision, repeatedly explained that the federal government's arguments were untenable.

The lower court put a stop to the executive order, which allowed immigrants, and lawful permanent residents, who were being denied entry under the order, to enter the country. The Ninth Circuit's ruling essentially means that those who would have been affected by the executive order but for the lower court's ruling, will still not be affected by it. However, it should be noted that all of these orders are preliminary, and will only be in place until a final resolution is reached as to the constitutional challenges to the executive order, which could take years if it is allowed to continue.

It seemed as if as soon as President Donald Trump announced his executive order banning Syrian refugees and instituting "extreme vetting" for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, the lawsuits started flying. One of the most important was filed by the state of Washington and was successful in getting a temporary restraining order blocking federal officials from enforcing the order.

Trump's lawyers appealed the TRO, requesting a stay until the case ran its course, but that request was denied over the weekend. The parties are still battling in court, and 97 companies decided to join the fray, filing a brief in support of Washington and claiming, among other things, that the order "effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies." You can see their full filing below:

U.S. District Judge James Robart issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump's recent executive order that banned citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations from traveling to the United States. Robart, appointed to the Western District of Washington by Geroge W. Bush, ruled in favor of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued over the order last week.

Robart ruled that Washington State had standing to bring the case forward. In his oral ruling, he declared that Washington provided evidence that Trump's order has immediate harm and that the lawsuit against the order has substantial likelihood of succeeding in challenging the constitutionality of the order.

Robart will be issuing a final written ruling. In the meantime, you can see Ferguson's proposed temporary restraining order below.

What happened to "no man left behind"? Does it only apply to our soldiers and not our foreign allies?

Nine Iraqi men, who risked their lives alongside American soldiers, are living in fear in Iraq after the United States allegedly failed to honor its promise. The men, identified by code names, worked as interpreters for U.S. forces in Iraq and were promised visas to come to the United States. Despite completing all required paperwork and interviews, the men have waited over two years and still have not received their visas.

So now, they are suing the U.S. Department of State. for a resolution on their Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications, NPR reports.

Immigrant advocacy groups have sued the federal government for a failure to provide legal representation for immigrant children facing deportation.

The class-action lawsuit (attached below) alleges the government is violating due process by having children navigate the complex immigration legal system alone.

The suit comes as the Obama administration scrambles resources to meet a surge of unaccompanied minors arriving at the nation's southwest border. The complaint seeks to require agencies to provide children with legal representation at deportation hearings.

"The government pays for a trained prosecutor to advocate for the deportation of every child. It is patently unfair to force children to defend themselves alone," said Ahilan Arulanantham, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "Their ability to grasp what is at stake and even just perform the act of talking to a judge is virtually nonexistent.

"A 10-year-old cannot make legal arguments and cannot even make reliably accurate factual statements that a court can rely on in deciding that child's case."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Immigration Council and other groups on behalf of children facing deportation hearings.

Senate Immigration Bill Would Save US $175 Billion: CBO Report

The Senate's proposed immigration law would cut close to $1 trillion from the federal deficit over the next two decades and lead to more than 10 million new legal residents in the country.

The findings came in the long-awaited report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Tuesday. It marked a major victory for the "Gang of Eight" senators who have spent months negotiating sweeping immigration reform.

Conservatives have said the bill would cost the nation billions of dollars. The impartial CBO analysts concluded the opposite.

The agency said deficits would fall by $197 billion the first 10 years and by $700 billion in the next decade if the bill became law. That is even with higher spending on border security and government benefits.

In a statement issued quickly after the report was released, the White House said it was "more proof that bipartisan commonsense immigration reform will be good for economic growth and deficit reduction."

Legal to Blacklist Suspected Illegal Immigrants in Alabama?

Should law enforcement be required to publish an immigrant “black list”?

A portion of Alabama’s latest immigration law requires state law enforcement to publish a list of immigrants who may be undocumented. HB 658, signed by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley last May, was designed to “simplify and clarify” the state’s existing immigration law.

The ACLU criticized the immigrant “black list” which offers no mechanism for persons on the list to challenge their inclusion.

“This law violates privacy laws and basic constitutional rights, as well as conflicts with fundamental American values of fairness and equality,” said Justin Cox, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. He called the provision unconstitutional and called on Alabama to consider alternatives.

The ACLU lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction blocking the provision of the law that mandates the immigrant black list.