CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

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.

In a case of saying much without saying a lot, the Supreme Court again compromised on President Donald Trump's travel ban. This time, a one-paragraph order left in place a Hawaii judge's ruling permitting entry of "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States."

At the same time, the Court granted the administration's request to stay part of the decision that would have made it easier for more refugees to enter the country. The Court's ruling is less than 50 words, but you can read the full decision on which it is based below:

Like many federal judges before him, United States District Judge William H. Orrick of California's Northern District has enjoined the federal government from enforcing one of President Donald Trump's executive orders. Trump's Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," has suffered the same fate as his travel ban, both the original and the revised version.

So why was the latest order ruled unconstitutional? You can see Judge Orrick's reasoning below.

President Donald Trump's second attempt at barring entry into the United States from Muslim-majority countries has been put on hold, with a federal judge in Hawaii issuing a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the travel ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson's ruling comes two months after another federal court in Washington blocked Trump's initial executive order on immigration, a decision which was upheld by a unanimous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just a few weeks ago.

Judge Watson's opinion was not kind to President Trump or his surrogates, who are quoted extensively as evidence that the ban was specifically targeted toward Muslims. You can read the full opinion below.

President Trump has issued a revised executive order addressing travel and immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. The new order comes less than a month after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously blocked his previous executive order on the issue.

While the latest executive order is designed to avoid the same political and legal issues as its predecessor, it retains many of the same travel restrictions. So what's new in the new travel ban, and will it be any more palatable to protestors, politicians, and, most importantly, the courts? You can read it for yourself below.