U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

Jae Lee immigrated to the United States from South Korea when he was just a teenager. Decades later, he was accused of dealing ecstasy in Memphis, Tennessee. At the urging of his attorney, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year and one day in jail.

Here's the rub. Unlike his parents, Lee had never become an American citizen. And despite his concerns, his attorney assured him that a guilty plea would not result in his deportation, an assurance that turned out to be dead wrong. Now Lee will go before the Supreme Court tomorrow, arguing that his conviction should be overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel. But will the fact that Lee was almost guaranteed to lose at trial keep him from prevailing?

Juan Esquivel-Quintana was 20 years old when he pleaded no contest to having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. Though the relationship would not have been a crime in 43 states or under federal law, it was one in California, where the state prohibits an adult to have sex with a minor three or more years younger. And because Esquivel-Quintana was a legal immigrant, not a citizen, his conviction led the U.S. government to begin deportation proceedings.

Esquivel-Quintana's case came before the Court earlier this week, as the Justices heard arguments over whether his crime qualifies as an "aggravated felony" mandating his deportation.

When a Ninth Circuit panel refused to reinstate President Trump's immigration ban executive order yesterday, the president went straight to Twitter. "We'll see you in court," he said -- in all caps.

We're presuming he means the Supreme Court here. It's possible that an emergency appeal to the highest court in the land will come within a day or two.

But if Washington v. Trump makes its way to SCOTUS, will the outcome change? That's not likely, according to some legal experts.

Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court, but his influence certainly remains. And President Trump seems committed to continuing, even extending, that legacy. He's spoken of appointing justices "very much in the mold of Justice Scalia," for example, and his shortlist is full of Scalia-like originalists and textualists.

But when it comes to Trump's signature issue, that "big, beautiful wall" meant to offset the Statue of Liberty, one of Justice Scalia's opinions might stand in Trump's way.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments on the extent of the government's power to detain immigrants facing removal, without the opportunity for release. Currently, thousands of immigrants and asylum seekers are held in prison-like conditions while their cases work through the immigration system. Those detentions are long, taking over a year in most cases, and detained immigrants are offered no bond hearings.

The Ninth Circuit ruled last year that such detainees must be given a bond hearing within six months and that the government must release those who it cannot prove are a flight risk or danger to the public. The Supreme Court Justices, however, appeared to split 4-4 during oral arguments, raising the possibility that the Court could deadlock on the issues raised.

In 2003's Demore v. Kim, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that permanent residents were not entitled to bail when in custody and appealing deportation rulings. The opinion's logic was based, in part, on the brevity of those detentions. Government statistics, provided to the Supreme Court by the Department of Justice, showed that removal proceedings concluded quickly, that deportation appeals were rare, and that those appeals, too, were resolved with relative speed.

In a troubling revelation, the Office of the Solicitor General now admits those statistics were wrong, according to a report by Jess Bravin in the Wall Street Journal.

When the Supreme Court deadlocked on President Obama's immigration reform plan, it marked a major defeat for the president. The four-to-four tie left in place a Fifth Circuit ruling halting Obama's immigration reforms, essentially bringing an end to a program that would have prevented the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants -- and which the president had hoped would be one of his signature achievements.

But less than a month later, the government is asking for a second chance, petitioning for a rehearing once the court gets its ninth justice. Such rehearings are incredibly rare, but they are not unprecedented. To make its case, the government turned to the Court's own history, noting that an equally divided Court had reheard similar cases before -- many from the late 1800's. Hey, precedent is precedent.

The Supreme Court split four to four today in a case challenging one President Obama's signature immigration reform efforts. The case, United States v. Texas, was one of the Court's highest profile disputes of the term, touching on a host of significant issues, from the ability of states to challenge federal immigration programs, to the extent of executive branch power, and to, not insignificantly, the status of millions of immigrants.

The split essentially puts the program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents or DAPA, on hold for the foreseeable future, leaving in place an injunction shutting down the program nationwide.

The federal judge who first ruled against President Obama's immigration reforms, a case currently pending in the Supreme Court, has made another bold and far-reaching move in connection to the case. After having found misconduct on the part of the government attorneys in the immigration case, District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District of Texas has put himself in charge of their ethics training.

But it's not just those specific attorneys that Hanen wants to ethically reeducate. It's every single DOJ lawyer who appears in court -- in any court, federal or state, in 26 specific states over the next five years. If the order stands, Judge Hanen may soon become a very busy man. But, he's only doing it to help out the Supreme Court, Hanen says.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Obama's immigration reform plan today. Under Obama's immigration plan, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, millions of immigrants could be spared deportation and given a path to lawful status. Twenty-six states, led by Texas, have sued to halt it, arguing that the plan is beyond the president's power.

At oral arguments, the eight-justice Court seemed evenly divided along ideological lines. That raises the prospect of a deadlocked, equally divided non-decision in one of the Court's most important cases of the year.