• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

It is unclear if the Trump administration will comply with a judicial order to accept new DACA applications.

It is unclear if the Trump administration will comply with a judicial order to accept new DACA applications.

Last month, the Supreme Court held that the Trump administration improperly ended the DACA program, and that the program could continue. On July 17, a federal judge ruled that DACA must be restored to its full, “pre-September 5, 2017 status.” Despite the order, USCIS has said that it is currently reviewing the decision. It is unclear whether USCIS will begin accepting new DACA applications soon or if it plans to appeal the ruling. On Tuesday, several DACA recipients filed a lawsuit in New York federal court over the government’s refusal to process new applications after the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court has granted a case on the stop-time rule for next term.

On June 8, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear an immigration case on the stop-time rule in its next term. The stop-time rule, which stops the clock on time accrued by the immigrant to become eligible for relief from deportation, is triggered when the government sends the immigrant a “notice to appear” with specific information about the removal proceedings. The specific issue that the Supreme Court will consider is whether all the necessary information must be provided to the immigrant in a single document or if the government can trigger the rule by providing multiple documents. The Supreme Court’s next term starts in October of this year. 

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear a challenge to a California sanctuary law.

On June 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in a case challenging a California law limiting information-sharing with federal immigration enforcement. Since the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of California, the Supreme Court’s decision to decline the case lets the law stand.

The Supreme Court ruled that LGBT workers are protected from workplace discrimination.

On June 15, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII forbids workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ruling was based on the meaning of “discrimination on the basis of sex” in existing federal law. Justice Gorsuch wrote both opinions, and was joined by Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan in the majority. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissented. In the realm of immigration, this ruling could affect and protect both immigrant and nonimmigrant workers from discrimination.

Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers Cannot Seek Federal Court Review of Expedited Removal Orders

In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the U.S. Supreme Court held that restrictions on the ability of asylum seekers to obtain review of expedited removal orders under a federal habeas statute do not violate the Constitution’s suspension clause or due process clause

USCIS issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s DACA decision.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was “arbitrary” and invalid, and the administration would need to go through the proper processes to end the program. On June 19, USCIS issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. USCIS holds the position that the Supreme Court’s decision “has no basis in law” and only “delays” the end of the program. USCIS further said that DACA is not a “long-term solution,” and that Congress has the ability to reform immigration laws to allow for solutions for undocumented immigrants.

A new Supreme Court decision makes it easier for the government to deport immigrants for crimes.

On April 23, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that found one permanent resident ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his past crimes. One issue in the case was the “stop-time rule.” The Supreme Court found that the rule was triggered when the immigrant committed a crime that made him inadmissible, though he had already been legally residing in the U.S. too long for the crime to trigger removability. This meant that the official “clock” of his residency was stopped just months before the 7-year milestone that would have made him eligible for cancellation of removal. The 5-4 decision was split along ideological lines.

The Supreme Court punted an immigration-related case back down to the 9th Circuit.

On May 7, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 9th Circuit should not have ruled on an immigration-related First Amendment issue, because the issue was not raised by either parties in the lawsuit. The lawsuit concerns one woman who was convicted of “encouraging” a foreigner to be in the U.S. illegally. Now, the case will go back to the 9th Circuit to be considered on the merits of the other arguments that the parties did raise

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said the Supreme Court has a bias towards the Trump administration.

On February 21, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion to a Supreme Court ruling allowing the Trump administration’s new public charge rule to take effect in Illinois, despite an existing injunction in that state. In her opinion, she wrote that the Supreme Court was “all too quick to grant the Government’s ‘reflexiv[e]’ requests” and that the “disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process.”

The Supreme Court is weighing the issue of criminalization of advocacy for undocumented immigrants.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether a law that makes it a crime to encourage someone to come to or reside in the U.S. illegally is unconstitutional. The government appealed from a 9th Circuit decision which struck down the law, saying it was too broad and would chill free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

%d bloggers like this: