• 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

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.

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

The Supreme Court heard 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.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on DACA

President Trump announced the end of DACA more than two years ago. Due to litigation, it is still in effect, and now the Supreme Court will have the final word. The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on 1) whether federal judges are able to review DACA, and 2) whether the way Trump went about ending DACA violated the law. The government argued that ending DACA falls within normal discretion, while plaintiffs argued the government’s ending of DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The justices seemed split, though many justices kept their feelings close to their chest. A decision can be expected by summer.

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in DACA Termination Case

On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the administration’s decision to terminate DACA, the program that shields certain immigrants who were brought to the United States as children from deportation.

%d bloggers like this: