U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Immigration Law Category

A recent Ninth Circuit appellate opinion explains that the federal law prohibiting individuals from inducing or encouraging undocumented immigration when they know it will be unlawful is unconstitutional.

Simply put, the court explained that the statute criminalized "encouraging," which triggers First Amendment scrutiny and fails that scrutiny for being overly broad. And while amicus in the case, and other immigration advocates, believe the end result is just, the underlying case's facts might be difficult for those same individuals to stomach.

A recent federal court ruling out of California's Northern District Court has enjoined, nationwide, the Trump Administration's newest policy basically denying all asylum seekers coming to America.

Judge Jon Tigar explained rather clearly in his ruling, supporting his order for a preliminary injunction stopping the new policy from being carried out: "Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden."

In a recent panel decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court issued injunction staying the full rescission of DACA was upheld.

Despite the federal government's pleas for the Supreme Court to intervene ahead of the circuit court, and the federal government's assertion that the injunction forces the government to violate federal law, the Ninth Circuit panel all agreed that the plaintiffs had satisfied the likelihood of success on the merits factor, at least as to the equal protection claim.

Court Strikes Executive Order to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

A federal judge handed President Trump another loss in his battle against sanctuary cities.

Judge Richard Jones said Trump's executive order to withhold funding from Seattle and Portland was unconstitutional. It was the second time in three months that a federal court has struck the president's order.

"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" was the name of the order. "Unconstitutional" was the ruling in City of Seattle v. Trump.

Judge Blocks Trump From Deporting Immigrants Under TPS

A federal judge stopped the Trump administration from taking away the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, saying they would suffer "irreparable harm" if sent back to their home countries.

The administration terminated the protected status of about 300,000 immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Sudan in November 2017. The immigrants left their countries because of life-threatening conditions, such as civil war.

Representatives sued and asked for an injunction to stop the government action. Judge Edward Chen granted their request pending a trial to decide whether the administration unlawfully discriminated against them.

A recently filed case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeks to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request made by immigration advocacy groups to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The request is aimed at discovering just what is going on with the massive backlog of N400 citizenship applications, which is continuing to grow, resulting in systemic consequences for individuals who should rightfully be granted citizenship.

A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has mostly upheld the injunction barring the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order that would deny sanctuary cities federal funding. The panel found that the district court's ruling was proper as to the state of California, and the cities and counties within it, but the nationwide injunction was overturned.

The majority opinion remanded the case to the district court, potentially giving the plaintiffs in the case another chance at presenting sufficient evidence to justify the full nationwide injunction.

Sometimes the law is technical and cruel, and sometimes the law is technical and correct. Most people will probably come down on the latter side of that when it comes to the technical application of the law in the Adil Elmakhzoumi v. Sessions case.

In that matter, an immigrant seeking naturalization was rejected because of a prior conviction for sodomy without consent. On appeal, he argued that the law technically prohibited the naturalization of individuals with rape convictions, not sodomy without consent convictions. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and found that the definition of rape included sodomy without consent.

A recent case decided by the Ninth Circuit has been causing a stir, simply for reaffirming what's already well established, though resoundingly un-liked, under the law: Accompanied minors facing deportation do not have the right to an attorney provided by the government.

In addition to that holding, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the notion that an immigration judge is required to advise of all possible eligibilities for benefits. Rather, the court explained that only the benefits that the record clearly shows an alien is eligible for are required to be advised.

After President Trump decided to end DACA, challenges were brought almost immediately as the potential harm for the "dreamers" was imminent. Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as one of the first federal court judges to hear a challenge, issued a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to revive part of DACA while the lawsuit weaves its way through the court.

The injunction prohibits the government from ending the program for current dreamers, and requires it to accept renewal applications. However, the injunction does permit the government to refuse to accept new applications. Also, the injunction does not prevent the government from denying reentry into the country if a dreamer leaves.