Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

The Trump administration is not a fan of sanctuary cities and states. One of the new president's first executive orders called for the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to "ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants."

And those sanctuary jurisdictions were not fans of that executive order. Four California cities, along with the state and the city of Chicago, have filed lawsuits against President Trump and Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, calling such bans on federal funding unconstitutional. So far, the majority of judges have ruled in favor of the sanctuary cities, and the Ninth Circuit joined that list, deciding this week that Congress alone controls spending under the Constitution, and presidents do not have the power to unilaterally withhold funding as a means to pursue their own policy goals.

Motel 6 to Settle Lawsuit for Allegedly Giving Latino Guest Info to ICE

Summers in Arizona are brutal, where temperatures exceed 100 almost daily, reaching heights that can fry an egg on a sidewalk. If locals don't have air conditioning, they may be tempted to stay at a local motel to escape the heat. But, if they're staying at a Motel 6, they may be in for another type of heat ...

In yet another Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid targeting Latinos, Motel 6 settled a discrimination and privacy lawsuit in which guests claimed that their location and personal information were shared with ICE.

In that lawsuit, the motels shared with ICE the names and location of eight Latino guests staying in the hotels to escape the summer heat, in violation of the hotel's privacy agreement with guests. This disclosure led to the arrest of seven guests, and at least one was deported. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but this is not the first time Latinos and Motel 6 and ICE have shaken things up.

President Donald Trump's travel ban has been controversial from the start. The Executive Order, restricting immigrants from majority-Muslim countries, was rewritten twice after several federal courts repeatedly blocked different versions of the ban, citing "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order" that "plainly discriminates based on nationality."

The Supreme Court, however, removed one of those injunctions against the ban this morning, sending the case back to the Ninth Circuit with some forceful language 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.

Immigration law in the United States is extraordinarily complex, and deportation proceedings can be even more so. The law, in a roundabout way, gives nonpermanent residents a way to challenge their removal, if (among other requirements) they have "been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date" they file their challenge. But how those ten years are counted was the subject of a major case in the Supreme Court, with a Brazilian immigrant living in Martha's Vineyard battling Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States over the effect of a "notice to appear" affects the timing.

And the Court ruled in the man's favor, declaring that such notices that lack specific information don't end the tolling of years under the immigration law.

Last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an immigrant minor's request that she be permitted to obtain an abortion, though she was in federal custody. Although the teen has since gotten the procedure, turned 18, and been released, the Supreme Court today vacated that decision, meaning it can no longer be used as precedent in future cases.

What did the Court actually say regarding the matter? And what does that mean for similarly situated immigrant women?

Student Suspended for Pro Border Wall Shirt Sues -- and Wins

The immigration debate is certainly not confined to talking heads, shouting matches in the street, and uncomfortable discussions at family gatherings. High schoolers are also engaged in the discussion (although it often hardly looks like a discussion, even among adults). However, when one student expressed his views with a pro border wall t-shirt at school, he was suspended. While his free-speech lawsuit against the school is pending, he's at least won a partial victory in court.

Court Rules ICE Lied About Dreamer's Gang Affiliation

These days, there is never a dull moment when it comes to the great immigration debate. Between talks of amnesty, the wall, DACA, and deportation, there are plenty of issues to wrangle over. But there are also stories of real people and how this debate is playing out in their lives. After being detained and threatened with removal, one dreamer narrowly avoided deportation as a court ruled that ICE lied about his gang affiliation

It is well established, as the Supreme Court noted in an opinion handed down this week, that "any alien convicted of an 'aggravated felony' after entering the United States will be deported." What is less well-known is what qualifies as an aggravated felony.

Upon examining this issue, the Court ruled that the federal statute used to determine whether a particular conviction constituted an aggravated felony is unconstitutionally vague. This means the definition of an aggravated felony under federal immigration law will need to be tightened up, and in the meantime, the rules for automatic deportation could be loosened.

Texas Can Enforce Ban on Sanctuary Cities, 5th Circuit Rules

With President Trump and his administration's focus on immigration, it's no surprise that immigration topics are often in the news. A bulk of the current news relating to immigration pertains to undocumented immigrants and the concept of sanctuary cities. Cities that consider themselves sanctuaries limit the amount of assistance that law enforcement and other government employees can give to the federal government when it comes to matters relating to immigration.

Immigrants detained pending deportation are not entitled to bond hearings every six months under federal law. That's the decision by a closely divided Supreme Court on Tuesday, reversing a contrary 2015 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.