Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

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.

In one of the two closely watched and highly controversial travel ban cases that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up on review this term, an order of dismissal has been issued. However, the dismissal only applies to Executive Order 13,780, a.k.a. travel ban 2.0, which had expired as of September 24, 2017.

As the Court explained in a brief order, because the travel ban in issue had expired, the legal case no longer presented a "live case or controversy." In legal terms, the case was ordered dismissed as "moot" -- which is basically the Court  refusing to hear a case where it can't fix anything anymore.

Despite two different federal appeals courts upholding the ban on the travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court surprisingly reversed both rulings. However, even with their reversal, SCOTUS still limited the reach of the executive order issued by President Trump.

Primarily, the Court found that the ban could not be applied to individuals seeking entry who have sufficient, and legitimate, ties to the United States. The Court did find that in the absence of a prospective foreign visitor's ties to the U.S., the temporary travel ban could be applied.

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.