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).
Top Five Immigration Stories from 2013
From the beginning, it was clear that 2013 was going to be a big year for immigration. The results of the 2012 Presidential Election were widely interpreted as a rebuke to Mitt Romney’s enforcement-only “self-deportation” policy, and President Obama’s huge victory among minority communities was seen as a… Read More
Federal Judge Enjoins Key Provisions of South Carolina’s Immigration Law
Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council welcomes today’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel, which temporarily enjoined three provisions of South Carolina Act 69 and found a fourth provision likely to be overturned in future proceedings. The ruling makes South Carolina the sixth state—after Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, Utah, and… Read More
Class Action Settlement Removes Obstacles Preventing Asylum Applicants from Working
A recent settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of asylum seekers is removing obstacles they faced in obtaining work documents while they pursue their asylum claims. The inability to work for lengthy periods of time has had crippling effects on asylum applicants. Without proper work authorization, they have been vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, have been unable to pay for the legal assistance they need, have had to rely on family members and community organizations for financial help, and generally have felt unwelcome in a country that claims to offer them protection. Read More
Supreme Court Considers Restrictive Interpretation of Child Status Protection Act
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, a case challenging the government’s restrictive interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). The CSPA provides relief for the longstanding problem of children included on a parent’s visa application who “age out” –… Read More
The Punishment Should Fit the Crime for Immigrants, Too
The punishment should fit the crime. That maxim is as old as law itself, dating at least as far back as the Old Testament and Hammurabi’s Code. It’s firmly rooted in our Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. That principle—referred to as proportionality—appears in both our criminal and civil law. It forbids, for example, the imposition of a life sentence for passing a bad check. It means that the state cannot sentence juveniles for non-homicide crimes to life without parole. And it disallows extreme punitive damages awards. So what does proportionality have to say when the government tries to deport a lawful permanent resident who, a decade ago, shoplifted $200 worth of merchandise from a department store? Right now, astonishingly, nothing: immigration judges do not even consider whether a person’s banishment from the United States is a disproportionate punishment for a crime before ordering the person’s removal. But advocates are working to change this. Read More
New York’s Highest Court Says that Noncitizens Must Be Warned of Deportation Risk Before Pleading Guilty
The highest court in New York ruled on Tuesday that due process compels state court judges to warn defendants in criminal proceedings who are not U.S. citizens that pleading guilty to a felony may result in their deportation. The court noted that “deportation is a plea consequence of such tremendous importance, grave impact and frequent occurrence that a defendant is entitled to notice that it may ensue…Due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony.” Read More
Supreme Court to Interpret Child Status Protection Act
Last week, several groups, including the American Immigration Council, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court describing the heartrending stories of young people who have been separated from their families due to government processing delays and the shortage of visas. The case, Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, concerns the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which provides relief for the longstanding problem of children included on a parent’s visa application who “age out” – that is, turn 21 and lose their status as a “child”– before a visa becomes available. Upon turning 21, these young adults are unable to immigrate with their parents and must begin the visa application process anew, starting at the back of a new visa line. They end up being separated from family for years, even decades. The stories in the amicus brief make the case for how important it is that the law provide a remedy broadly available to young adults who age-out. Read More
New York City Pilots Free Legal Representation in Immigration Court
In criminal courts throughout the United States, the government provides defendants who cannot afford an attorney with a free public defender. In immigration courts, which are not part of the criminal court system, immigrants who are unable to hire a private attorney and cannot find a free legal service provider are forced to face off on their own against trained government attorneys. Individuals facing deportation had no legal representation in about 44% of the cases the immigration courts ruled on in 2012 – more than 126,000 cases in one year. But a new program in a New York City immigration court could change this system – for a limited number of indigent, detained immigrants, a pilot “public defender” program is providing free representation in immigration court. Read More
Immigration Advocacy Groups Urge Supreme Court to Interpret Child Status Protection Act Broadly
Washington, D.C.—This week, the American Immigration Council filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to rule 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. The brief was… Read More
Alabama’s HB 56 Anti-Immigrant Law Takes Final Gasps
Immigration advocates who have been fighting against Alabama’s HB 56, the punitive immigration measure often called the “show me your papers” law, declared victory after the state agreed not to pursue key provisions of the 2011 legislation. The agreement is part of a settlement of long-running lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of civil rights groups against HB 56. Alabama. The Supreme Court earlier this year refused to hear the state’s appeal of a previous federal court’s ruling that gutted the law. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
