Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

In an odd stride for equal rights between the genders, and one that is sure to please the "dadvocates" out there, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws conferring citizenship to children cannot favor mothers over fathers. The decision does not apply to custody matters, but solely to issues involving the citizenship of a child born outside the borders of the U.S.A. to a parent that is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

In short, the Court struck down the distinction in the law that placed a stricter requirement on fathers than mothers, when it came to eligibility for their foreign-born child to obtain U.S. citizenship.

The US Supreme Court decision issued Tuesday confused countless people who read headlines much like the one above. Many people were in disbelief that a convicted rapist was saved from deportation by the Supreme Court.

However, like most legal matters that reach the Supreme Court, the actual issue was much more nuanced than the click-baiting, rabble rousing portrayal in the popular media. It basically boiled down to the difference between the way California and the federal government sees statutory rape. To the surprise of many, California law is actually stricter than federal law.

In what must be a shock to Mike Pence, Indiana's Republican Governor and Donald Trump's running mate, a federal appeals court confirmed that Pence did in fact discriminate against Syrian refugees. Pence insisted that his action in denying funding to any state agency that assisted Syrian refugees was not an act of discrimination. However, both the Federal District Court and Federal Appeals Court pointed out that Pence's action was discriminatory, and that he is going to lose the underlying lawsuit.

Last year, amid the crisis in Syria causing millions of people to be displaced from their homes, over half of which being children, countries around the world opened their borders and hearts. The United States has only accepted a small fraction of the displaced peoples. In Indiana, Pence wanted to impose an outright ban on refugees. However, in no uncertain terms, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't buying it.

No Deportation Relief for Undocumented Parents of Americans and LPRs

The Supreme Court announced a deadlock today in a case about an immigration reform measure by President Obama. It would have allowed millions of undocumented parents of American citizens and permanent residents to avoid deportation and live in the light.

Texas led 26 states in opposing the Obama administration's measure, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. After the ruling's release, the President issued a statement expressing regret that he could do no more for immigrants before his term ended.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a federal policy that temporarily protects undocumented immigrants brought into the country unlawfully by their parents from deportation. Along with the DREAM ACT, it confers some legal standing to undocumented immigrants, like the ability to work, go to school, or get a driver's license.

The state of Arizona had been pushing back hard against the third part, with then-Governor Jan Brewer signing an executive order in 2012 denying licenses for young, undocumented immigrants. But the Ninth Circuit has overturned that ban and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing it.

Remember when your parents told you that you couldn't do something? You would ask "Why not?" and your parent answers, "Because I said so." After the Supreme Court's decisions in Din v. Kerry, the government can now essentially use such an answer in its immigrant visa denials.

In a 5-4 decision, the divided Supreme Court ruled that due process does not entitle visa applicants to more detailed justifications for why their applications were denied.

Ariz.'s No-Bail Immigrant Law Struck Down by 9th Cir.

An Arizona law denying bail to certain undocumented immigrants was struck down on Wednesday by a federal appeals court, finding the law to be an unconstitutional violation of due process.

This isn't the first time that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reviewed Proposition 100, a 2006 Arizona ballot measure that denied bail to undocumented immigrants charged with "serious" crimes. The Los Angeles Times reported that the appellate court upheld the law in a 2-1 decision last year, but the full panel wanted to rehear the case.

So why did the 9th Circuit decide to struck down the no-bail law this time?

Ariz. Immigrant Driver License Policy Hits Roadblock in 9th Cir.

Arizona immigrants celebrated a victory in court Monday, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of a policy that prohibits young immigrants from receiving Arizona driver's licenses.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA, also known as the "Dream Act") gives certain residents who were brought to the United States without documentation as children a chance to legally remain in the country and work. But under Arizona's policy, these "Dreamers" couldn't use their federally authorized employment documents as proof of their legal presence in the country.

Why did the 9th Circuit block this driver's license policy?

Mont. Law Requiring 'Immigration Checks' Struck Down

A federal judge in Montana has struck down most of a state law that required government officials to check the immigration status of those applying for state services.

The law was passed by voters in 2012 and required that Montana state officials run an immigration check on anyone applying for a wide array of state services, including unemployment benefits and crime-victim assistance, reports The Associated Press.

Why did the federal judge take issue with Montana's law?

'Aged Out' Immigrants Must Start Visa Process Over: Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign-born young relatives of American citizens and legal immigrants need to start the visa process over if they "age out" while waiting for a visa.

Currently the law allows extended relatives (such as nieces, nephews, and grandchildren) of legal U.S. residents to "piggyback" on their parents' visa applications until they reach 21 and "age out." The Supreme Court was asked to interpret whether U.S. immigration law intended to keep extended families together, which it denied, reports Reuters.

Why did the High Court come down hard on immigrants in this case?