Due Process and the Courts
What does the constitution say about due process?
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says clearly that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. Note that this says person, not citizen, and over the years the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Due Process Clause applies to all people in the United States.Do non-citizens have the right to due process in the U.S.?
Yes. The Constitution guarantees due process rights to all "persons," not just citizens. This means non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to fair treatment under the law. This includes the right to defend themselves in court. But recent Trump administration policies that speed up deportations and limit access to legal representation make it harder for non-citizens to get their fair day in court.- Access to legal representation Access to legal counsel is an essential part of our justice system and our democracy. In the criminal justice system, anyone facing even one day in jail gets a lawyer if they can't afford one. But immigrants facing deportation usually don't get that chance.The research is clear – the most effective way to ensure some level of due process for people navigating our complicated immigration system is for them to have trained attorney at their side. But Trump administration is now working to strip attorneys from as many people as possible, all in the name of increasing its deportation numbers. This attempt to eliminate basic due process will hurt people who already have few options.
- Fair day in court Due process guarantees that individuals have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. This includes non-citizens facing deportation.
Why is due process important?
We are seeing right now the importance of due process when it comes to President Trump's actions to carry out the so-called Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law that permits people to be deported outside of the normal framework of immigration law. President Trump has alleged that this law allows him to simply point at any person, declare them to be an alien enemy, and kick them out of the country without ever having a chance to see a judge. Thankfully, the Supreme Court said that is not true, and in a unanimous decision, ruled that people can challenge the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That is why due process is so important, because it means that no person can be rounded up and sent to another country without a chance to go to court and make the government prove their case.How is the American Immigration Council working to protect due process?
- We serve thousands of individuals in immigration detention centers through the Immigration Justice Campaign, our initiative with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The Justice Campaign provides free legal services for immigrants who would otherwise have to navigate our complicated immigration system without a lawyer.
- We use the courts to demand a fair process for immigrants. Our litigation team is fighting back against the Trump administration’s blatant disregard for due process including filing a lawsuit challenging their illegal detention of immigrants in El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Fifth Circuit Joins Other Courts in Holding That Immigrants Can Pursue Cases From Outside the United States
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the government’s ongoing attempt to bar noncitizens from seeking reopening and reconsideration of their cases from outside the United States. Ruling in two companion cases, the court found that the “departure bar”—a regulation barring noncitizens from pursuing their… Read More
Legal Action Center Welcomes Ninth Circuit’s Decision on Child Status Protection Act
An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of young adults who, due to long delays caused by visa backlogs, lost the opportunity to obtain their green cards before they turned 21. In accordance with arguments made in an amicus brief submitted by the… Read More
Author of Torture Memos Challenges Legality of DACA
As a high-ranking Justice Department attorney after 9/11, John Yoo authored an infamous legal memo arguing that the President, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possessed irrevocable authority to order the torture of alleged “enemy combatants.” Although the memos were subsequently revoked, Yoo has remained an ardent defender of presidential power—except, it appears, when it comes to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion for undocumented immigrants. Read More
American Immigration Council Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow immigration judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs) whose removal would cause extreme hardship to family members in the United States. The ruling marks the fourth opinion from a… Read More
AIC Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
American Immigration Council Applauds Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship Washington, D.C.—Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow immigration judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs) whose removal would… Read More
Why Kobach’s Lawsuit Against Deferred Action is Unlikely to Stand Up in Court
Kris Kobach’s official job title is Kansas Secretary of State. But he is better known for drafting—and being hired to defend in court—state and local immigration laws designed to make undocumented residents “self-deport.” His two most notorious undertakings are Arizona SB 1070 and Alabama HB 56, which have largely been eviscerated by federal courts. Yesterday, Kobach embarked on a new legal escapade, filing a lawsuit to block the Obama administration from granting deferred action to so-called “DREAMERers,” undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children. Fortunately, although sure to generate headlines, the lawsuit has little chance of standing up in court. Read More
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
Immigration Court Backlog Keeps Growing (and Growing, and Growing…)
Two recent reports from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) contain discouraging news about the backlog in our nation’s immigration courts. One noted that the number of pending removal proceedings has reached a record high, while the other reported that a relatively small number of cases have been closed through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Although the figures provide cause for concern, it remains unclear—absent additional information from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—whether the backlog is growing despite the effort to close low-priority cases, or actually because of it. Read More
New Injunction Sought in Challenge to Arizona SB 1070
Late Tuesday night, opponents of Arizona SB 1070 filed new papers in court seeking to block Section 2(B) from taking effect, arguing that state legislators were driven by anti-Latino bias and that the provision will inevitably result in constitutional violations. The motion, filed by civil rights groups, cited numerous previously undisclosed emails from former State Sen. Russell Pearce, the main sponsor of SB 1070, containing inflammatory comments about Mexico and unauthorized immigrants. The filing, submitted in federal district court in Phoenix, also sought an injunction against a separate provision of SB 1070 that attorneys argue is invalid under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States. Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar up to $75,000
No one should face the immigration system alone
