CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

Before the midterm elections, you probably heard a lot about the "migrant caravan" -- a group fleeing violence in Central America and potentially seeking asylum in the U.S. (Since the midterms? Not so much.) President Donald Trump sent troops to the southern border with Mexico in anticipation, and also attempted to limit the eligibility of asylum seekers crossing that border.

A group of those migrants sued the Trump administration, challenging the president's stance on detaining asylees as well as ICE and the Department of Homeland Security's practice of separating immigrant families in detention. And now a federal court in California has ruled that Trump's plan to prohibit people from seeking asylum if they did not cross at an official port of entry unconstitutional and blocked the government from enforcing it.

You can read the full ruling below.

Six Honduran parents part of a caravan fleeing gang violence in Central America have filed a prospective class action lawsuit against Donald Trump, ICE, and other immigration officials, claiming the president's "professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional."

The lawsuit asks a federal court to declare the Trump administrations immigration policies unconstitutional and seeks protection from those policies for the parents, their children, and other similarly situated migrants. You can read the full lawsuit, along with its allegations against the Trump administration, below.

The travel ban aside, none of President Trump's executive orders have garnered as much legal attention as his proposal to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities and states. A federal judge blocked the order in April 2017. California (along with other states) sued Attorney General Jefferson Sessions over it. Chicago (along with other cities) sued Sessions over it. That federal judge blocked it again. The Seventh Circuit blocked it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that federal judge's block.

And now, another federal judge has ruled against the executive order, deciding that it is unconstitutional and enjoined the government from enforcing it. You can see that decision below.

According to a new lawsuit filed in California, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has been ignoring Freedom of Information Act requests regarding significant delays in processing citizenship applications. And according to the immigrant rights groups that filed the suit, the delay is part of an effort to deny "thousands of lawful permanent residents the opportunity to more fully participate in civic life and to vote in important upcoming elections."

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, National Partnership for New Americans, and Mi Familia Vota, among others, claim "extreme vetting of naturalization applications and delays in the processing of [citizenship] applications has created a backlog of over 753,000 applications," and they are seeking government documents justifying the government's action. You can see their lawsuit below:

The Supreme Court today removed an injunction against President Donald Trump's much-maligned travel ban, citing federal immigration law that "exudes deference" to the president and allows him "broad discretion to suspend" the entry of noncitizens into the United States. Despite arguments and federal court rulings that the ban unfairly targeted Muslim immigrants, the Court determined the government demonstrated "a sufficient national security justification" for restricting entry from travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, and Somalia.

While the case isn't over yet -- it was sent back to the lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate" -- the Supreme Court's holding contained some forceful language that future challengers will need to overcome. You can read all of the Court's reasoning right here:

There are many reasons a person would want to leave her home country and go to another. One of the most frightening is fleeing violence and persecution. Asylees, as they're known legally, are in a vulnerable position -- in transit to a destination they may be denied access to, with nowhere safe to return.

While not all requests for asylum are granted, there are specific policies and procedures to which governments must adhere when assessing asylum claims. But a new class action lawsuit claims that U.S. border patrol officials have been unlawfully denying immigrants the ability to even apply for asylum. Here's a look at the lawsuit:

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not been a friendly venue for President Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration to the U.S. from several Muslim-majority countries. As recently as last month, a federal judge in Ninth Circuit blocked the administration's third attempt at re-issuing the travel ban.

But Trump won a partial victory in the Ninth this week, when judges split Trump's Travel Ban 3.0, allowing enforcement of some, but not all of its provisions. So what's in and what's out? You can check out the ruling for yourself below:

The State of California, along with Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security following the Trump administration's announcement that it would rescind former President Barack Obama's executive order regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The program had provided limited legal protection for individuals brought to the country illegally as minors.

California is claiming that Trump's efforts to cancel DACA protections are "illegal and seriously harm States' interests in ways that have already started to materialize and that threaten to last for generations." You can read the full lawsuit below:

On the heels of Chicago's lawsuit last week, and San Francisco's lawsuit over the weekend, the State of California has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions regarding President Donald Trump's executive order threatening to without federal grants from "sanctuary jurisdictions."

The lawsuit claims the threat represents and unconstitutional takeover of state and local law enforcement, and also violates the Constitution's Spending Clause, and is seeking an injunction against the Department of Justice, barring it from enforcing the executive order. You can read the lawsuit in full, below:

True to his campaign promises, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January threatening to without federal grants from "sanctuary jurisdictions." Such cities and states, which limit cooperation with the federal government in immigration matters, would be ineligible for certain federal funds unless they agreed to abide by immigration orders and enforcement. But by April a federal judge in California had enjoined the feds from enforcing the order, and upheld that injunction last month, even after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo intended to clarify the order.

Now, the City of Chicago is suing Sessions over the sanctuary cities order, calling it "unauthorized and unconstitutional," and claiming that enforcing the order would "fly in the face of longstanding City policy that promotes cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, ensures access to essential city services for all residents, and makes all Chicagoans safer." You can see the full lawsuit below.