Recently in Immigration Law Category

A just-released order might cause some confusion amongst those challenging the controversial Alabama immigration law.

Acting on the Justice Department's recent appeal, the 11th Circuit partially granted a preliminary injunction enjoining two sections of the law. However, the court also denied a request to stop the enforcement of four other provisions.

To make matters worse, the order provides absolutely no explanation for the court's decision.

Controversy surrounding New Mexico's driver's license verification program continues this week as state District Judge Sarah Singleton issued a temporary restraining order blocking the plan on Wednesday.

Finding that the state's attempt to re-verify the residency of over 10,000 foreign nationals could cause "irreparable injury...in the form of constitutional deprivations," she set a September 13 injunction hearing, at which time she will consider making the order more permanent.

In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona on Thursday, stating that federal immigration statutes do not preempt a 2007 mandatory E-Verify law that also punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

This decision is a big coup for Arizona and other states that have sought to curb the hiring of undocumented workers, also marking the state's first big "win" in its battle against illegal immigration.

On November 15, the California Supreme Court ruled it was legal for the state to grant California in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants while denying in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who live out of state. The court upheld the state law that allowed any student who had completed at least three years of high school and who had graduated or gained their GED in California to be eligible for the lower rate of in-state tuition in the California public university system.

Even though opponents of the law have said they will appeal the ruling, the state's supreme court decision may have far-reaching effects on other states with comparable laws. Similar lawsuits are still pending in Nebraska and Texas, according to The New York Times.

Should legal immigrants be subject to deportation when they are convicted of minor crimes, such as drug possession?

The Supreme Court emphatically ruled no on Tuesday, in 9-0 decision. The Court ruled in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that legal immigrants cannot be deported for minor drug possession charges. In order for deportation to be appropriate, a person must be charged with serious or violent crimes.

The Court's ruling was a rebuke of a 1996 federal law that requires automatic deportation of non-citizens found guilty of an aggravated felony. Because the term aggravated felony was not carefully defined, immigration judges could loosely interpret it to include crimes such as a second drug possession conviction. 

On March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision finding that immigrants have a right to be told by counsel that a guilty plea to a criminal charge may have consequences that would include deportation. If not informed, the lapse amounts to a violation of a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Justice John Paul Steven wrote for the majority with Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

In Nebraska, it doesn't matter who you are, if you are injured on the job, you are eligible for Nebraska workers compensation. That's the ruling of a Nebraska Court of Appeals, handed down Tuesday. The decision in this case, Visoso v. Cargill Meat Solutions, says that state workers comp includes everyone, even undocumented workers.  

Check please! This is what approximately 500 California based applicants for American citizenship have been waiting for, some for years.