The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently upheld most California sanctuary laws
that are designed to protect California residents from federal immigration
enforcement efforts. These laws contain various provisions, including the
requirement that private employers notify their employees when the federal agents
request an inspection of their employment records
restriction on state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal
immigration officials, except concerning certain violent crimes and felonies
inspection by the attorney general of immigration detention centers operating
in the state to ensure compliance with due process and specific standards of
care for immigrants
Administration had filed suit in federal court to prevent the state from
enacting these sanctuary laws. The federal government asked the federal
district court to issue a preliminary injunction barring the laws from going
into effect while the lawsuit was pending. The federal district court denied
the government’s request for a preliminary injunction and the federal
government appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit
ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
preliminary injunction, in which it concluded that the laws did not burden the
federal government or conflict with federal government activities. Any
obstruction created by the legislation, the court ruled, was within the state’s
rights to enact such legislation.
The only aspect of
the law that the Ninth Circuit panel found fault with was the provision that
requires the state attorney general to periodically inspect immigrant detention
centers to ensure minimum standards of habitability and compliance with due
process. The Court ruled that this provision placed an unfair and impermissible
burden on the federal government and requested that the lower court reconsider
the extent of the burden on the federal government in conducting the additional
inspections required under this provision of the state law.
law is in a state of constant flux, meaning that definitions, requirements, and
procedures are continually changing. In this situation, you may be able to
help. As experienced Texas immigration attorneys, we have the knowledge needed
to help you navigate through the often-complex immigration system. Call us today at (512) 474-4445 and schedule an appointment
with one of our immigration lawyers and learn how we can assist you.
In 2017, the
President greatly expanded the use of expedited removal by the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) through an executive order. Often criticized as providing
a complete lack of due process for immigrants in the deportation process, expedited
removal allows immigration officers to quickly deport some immigrants who do
not have proper documentation or who allegedly have committed fraud or some
misrepresentation. More specifically, individuals who enter the country without
authorization and whom immigration officials apprehend within two weeks of
their arrival and within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican borders are
subject to expedited removal.
Individuals whom immigration
officers place into expedited removal are not entitled to have a regular
deportation hearing before an immigration judge like other individuals who have
been charged with deportation. As expedited removal appears so rapidly, these
individuals rarely have a chance to produce evidence, consult with an attorney,
or even reach out to a family member or friend for help. Although expedited
removal is not supposed to apply to those seeking asylum, the inability to
challenge one’s placement into the expedited removal process means that many
asylum-seekers who lack proper documentation and do not enter through a port of
entry likely end up in the expedited removal process anyway.
Even more troubling
is the fact that many immigration officers fail to meet their duty to provide
even the minimal due process protections to which those seeking asylum are
entitled. Immigration officers fail to ask individuals whether they are seeking
asylum, fail to provide interpreter services, and fail to record, document, or
even conduct the credible fear interviews that are supposed to be a part of the
asylum process. This only results in more people seeking asylum falling victim
to the expedited removal process.
Most recently, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individuals seeking asylum who are forced into expedited removal due to these faulty procedures have the right to a review of their cases by a federal court. In ruling that the lack of federal court review for expedited removal cases violated the Suspension Clause, asylum-seekers in this position now may be able to have their day in court. No matter the type of immigration issue you are facing, the skilled and knowledgeable immigration lawyers of Peek & Toland are here to assist you. We handle many different types of immigration cases every day and have the kind of strategic experience and skills that are necessary to reach the desired outcome. By calling our office as quickly as possible after your legal issue arises, we will have the best opportunity to resolve your immigration case successfully.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a federal law that made it a felony offense for individuals to encourage an immigrant to enter or remain in the U.S. if they know that the immigrant would be doing so illegally. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the rule violates the First Amendment because it criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech.
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Immigration Law as Violative of First Amendment
Although the law predated the Trump administration, it has taken on new meaning in light of the current administration’s focus on immigration enforcement efforts. Although attorneys for the government argued that the law targeted only a very narrow type of conduct and speech, the court disagreed, finding multiple situations in which innocent conversations between family members, attorneys and clients, and statements by speakers at public meetings could form the basis for felony prosecutions. The court stated that due to the broad nature of the statute as written, it could not rely on the U.S. Justice Department’s word that it would not enforce the statute in that matter.
The current appeal arose from a case in which a California immigration consultant was convicted of fraud for advising immigrants that they could obtain permanent residency under a program that already had expired. In connection with that matter, the woman also was convicted of two counts of encouraging immigrants to remain in the U.S. for financial gain. The woman and her lawyers appealed the conviction on the basis that the law was unconstitutional, which led to the Ninth Circuit considering the matter.
At Peek & Toland, we care about helping you obtain through your immigration problems. We will focus our efforts on advocating on your behalf and representing your interests throughout the immigration process. Our knowledgeable immigration lawyers know the best strategies for gathering documentation to support your goals. Allow us to handle your immigration law case by sitting down with us today and discussing your situation.
Use of this website, does not constitute, in any manner, an attorney-client relationship between Peek & Toland and the receiver. While the information on the Peek & Toland website is about legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as substitute for the particularized advice of your own counsel. If you are seeking specific legal advice or assistance, you may contact us through our contact page or the phone number provided above, or you may seek legal advice or assistance through another source. Filling out the contact us form, calling our office or emailing our attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship and will not be treated as confidential. Transmission of information from this site or any use of e-mail is not intended to create or establish an attorney-client relationship between Peek & Toland and anyone else.
The information provided on the Peek & Toland website should not be relied on as accurate or correct as laws in specific jurisdictions change frequently. Please consult an attorney in your jurisdiction for specific question about the law in your area.