Recently in Immigration Law Category

Arizona's controversial immigration law was passed back in 2010 but Tuesday was the first time one of the more hotly contested provisions could be enforced.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that police can start enforcing the 'show me your papers' provision of the law after a two year legal battle. The ruling comes after a Supreme Court decision earlier this year that upheld the provision, reports CNN.

The provision doesn't mean police can check anyone's papers. But it does give them additional power to question immigration status in certain circumstances.

Parts of Alabama's immigration law were struck down in an 11th Circuit decision published Monday. The law was intended to step-up policing of undocumented immigrants.

The law included some pieces that were similar to those ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court earlier this year. Sections requiring immigrants to carry documents at all times and criminalizing transport or illegal immigrants were struck down, reports the Chicago Tribune.

A rule unique to Alabama that affects children was also struck down by the court. The ruling noted that it violated Equal Protection.

Arizona police can now ask about immigration status during stops, rules the Supreme Court of the United States. While considering Arizona's immigration law, the Supreme Court upheld certain parts of the law, while striking down other parts.

As a result of the divided 5-3 decision, Arizona police will now immediately enforce that part of the law that allows police immigration checks.

State police will flag federal authorities when they find an illegal immigrant, though it's unclear what other steps officials are allowed to take once discovering an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that immigrants can't avoid deportation for criminal activities based on how long their parents have been in the country.

Under federal law, immigrants who've been in America continuously for seven years are given leniency in deportation hearings. They must also be legally registered for at least five years. The Court's latest decision makes it so that immigrants can't tack on their parents' residency years to reach the seven year minimum, Reuters reports.

So what motivated the Court to reach this ruling?

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.