Federal Courts/Jurisdiction
Alabama Ruling Yet Another Rebuke to State Immigration Laws
As with the Supreme Court’s recent opinion on Arizona SB 1070, initial media coverage portrayed the (technically) mixed rulings on the Alabama and Georgia immigration laws as a split decision. But do not be fooled: yesterday’s opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit represent a sweeping win for the immigrants’ rights movement and a crushing blow to the legal crusade led by Kris Kobach. While yesterday’s victory was not unqualified, the provisions struck down by the Eleventh Circuit were far more significant than those that were upheld. Read More
BREAKING: Federal Court Strikes Down Major Provisions of Alabama, Georgia Immigration Laws
In a series of decisions issued Monday afternoon, a federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down major portions of controversial immigration laws passed by Alabama and Georgia—including a provision requiring public school officials to determine the immigration status of newly enrolling students. As the first decisions to be issued… Read More
Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Stand Trial on Racial Profiling Charges
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may finally face the music this week in a federal trial in Phoenix. The renowned anti-immigrant media glutton and self-proclaimed “America’s Toughest Sheriff” stands accused of discrimination and harassment charges in a class action lawsuit involving the ACLU and MALDEF. Arpaio has a long history of abuse and discrimination in the name of immigration enforcement—from a segregated tent city to unlawful stops and forcing inmates to wear pink underwear. In fact, Arpaio is also the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice earlier this year alleging that Arpaio and his officers targeted Latino drivers during traffic stops and neighborhood sweeps and used ethnic slurs against Latino inmates in county jails. Read More
Some States Attempt to Move Forward on Immigration Laws Following Supreme Court Decision
Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Arizona SB 1070, other states that passed immigration laws were also embroiled in complicated legal battles. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah all passed restrictive immigration laws, parts of which were challenged in court and subsequently enjoined pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, however, each state is now attempting to interpret that ruling in an effort to implement its immigration law. Read More
Civil Rights Groups Resume Legal Challenges to Alabama’s Immigration Law
Less than three weeks after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Arizona v. United States—which struck down three provisions of SB 1070 and invited future challenges to a fourth—civil rights groups are back in court resuming their challenges to copycat laws in other states. Going forward, the lawsuits will focus more on how to interpret the Justices’ decision and less on theoretical legal questions about states’ rights. While the cases in Alabama and other states may take years to resolve, it is already clear that parts of the laws will be immediately struck down. Read More
In Arizona Case, Supreme Court Affirms Legality of Prosecutorial Discretion
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the restrictionist movement on Monday by striking down three provisions of Arizona SB 1070 and leaving a fourth vulnerable to future challenge. But in a lesser noticed development, the Court also undercut the arguments of critics who contend the President violated the Constitution by recently directing his administration not to deport otherwise removable immigrants who were brought to the country as children. As the majority opinion confirmed—and not even Justice Scalia denied—the President’s authority to set enforcement priorities is a valid and important aspect of the immigration system. Read More
DHS Rescinds Part of Controversial 287(g) Program in Arizona
The Obama administration suspended part of its controversial 287(g) program in Arizona this week following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States. DHS announced that it was ending its “287(g) task force agreements” in Arizona —agreements which deputize certain local police to enforce immigration laws. Other state immigration programs, however, like Secure Communities and the 287(g) jail agreements (which allow deputized arresting officers to enforce immigration laws in jails), will remain in effect. Read More
Does the Supreme Court Think Most Immigrants are Criminals?
Even as the Supreme Court struck down three provisions of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law (SB 1070), the Justices appeared to embrace a major falsehood of nativist ideology: that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than the native-born. On page six of the majority opinion, the Court maintains that unauthorized immigrants are “reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime” in Arizona’s Maricopa County. The source cited for this bold statement is a 2009 report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)—a deeply flawed report which attempts to overturn a century’s worth of research demonstrating that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to commit violent crimes or end up behind bars. Read More
Supreme Court Issues Mixed Decision on Arizona SB 1070
The Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling on Monday in the Obama administration’s challenge to Arizona SB 1070. By a 5-3 margin, the Justices upheld the injunction against provisions of the law that authorize police to arrest immigrants suspected of committing removable offenses (Section 6), and that impose penalties under state law for immigrants who fail to carry “registration” papers (Section 3) or attempt to work without federal authorization (Section 5). Although the Court allowed the implementation of the provision of SB 1070 requiring police to determine the immigration status of people in custody “reasonable suspicion” exists that they are in the country unlawfully (Section 2(B)), it left open the door to future legal challenges. Read More
Supreme Court Limits Arizona’s Overreach on Immigration, Leaves Door Open to Future Challenges
Washington D.C. – In a blow to the state anti-immigration movement, the Supreme Court ruled today that the authority to enforce immigration laws rests squarely with the federal government, limiting the role that states may play in crafting state-level answers to immigration enforcement. By a 5-3 margin, the Court struck… Read More
America's story is an immigrant story.
