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).
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
After 30 Years, Plyler v. Doe Decision Survives but Remains Under Attack
Thirty years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Plyler v. Doe, holding that states cannot deny a free public education to students for lack of valid immigration status. The decision has since opened the schoolhouse doors to untold numbers of children who might otherwise be deprived of a basic education. Yet today, the decision remains under continued attack from critics who—as part of an ongoing effort to put the issue back before the Justices—appear willing to sacrifice the welfare of U.S. citizens. Read More
After 30 Years, Plyler v. Doe Decision Survives but Remains Under Attack
Thirty years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Plyler v. Doe, holding that states cannot deny a free public education to students for lack of valid immigration status. The decision has since opened the schoolhouse doors to untold numbers of children who might otherwise be deprived of a basic education. Yet today, the decision remains under continued attack from critics who—as part of an ongoing effort to put the issue back before the Justices—appear willing to sacrifice the welfare of U.S. citizens. Read More
Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe
This fact sheet provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe and subsequent efforts by states and localities to avoid compliance with the decision. Read More
Prosecutorial Discretion: A Statistical Analysis
In August 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would review more than 300,000 pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion. The initiative was officially launched in November 2011 and is expected to continue for much of 2012. To date, DHS has released statistics on three occasions measuring the progress of the initiative. This fact sheet provides background information about the case-by-case review process and a statistical assessment of those figures. Read More
Legal Action Center Files Suit Against DHS for Failure to Disclose Records on “Voluntary” Returns
Washington D.C. – Yesterday, the Legal Action Center (LAC) at the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, filed suit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for unlawfully withholding records concerning voluntary returns of noncitizens from the United… Read More
Council Reveals Government’s Interference with Noncitizens’ Access to Legal Counsel
Washington D.C. – Today, the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center released a report and filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on the pressing issue of noncitizens’ access to counsel. Reports from across the country indicate that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) immigration agencies—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration… Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
