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).
Supreme Court to Weigh in on Injunctions Against Arizona SB 1070
Earlier today, the Supreme Court announced what many supporters and opponents of Arizona SB 1070 long expected: that the Justices will themselves have the final word on the validity of the injunctions entered shortly after the law was enacted last year. Technically, the question before the Justices is simply whether four of the law’s provisions should be temporarily blocked pending resolution of a larger legal challenge. In addition, the Court will not consider claims raised in a separate lawsuit by numerous immigrants’ and civil rights groups. But in the decision it ultimately issues, the Supreme Court may well provide broad guidance about what role, if any, local police may play in enforcing federal immigration law—which could in turn affect legal challenges to copycat laws in other states, such as Alabama. Read More
Thousands Rally for Repeal of Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
Thousands gathered outside the historic 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama yesterday to demand the repeal of the state’s harsh anti-immigration law, HB 56. Religious, community and civil rights leaders, as well as a special Congressional delegation, urged state legislators to bring an end to Alabama’s immigration law—a law which continues to slow state businesses, separate families and drive immigrants from the state. The Congressional delegation also held an ad hoc hearing at Birmingham City Hall to hear how the controversial law is effecting state residents, especially the Latino and immigrant communities where, according to Rep. Luis Gutierrez, “the feeling of danger and despair is palpable.” One Congressional member, Rep. Al Green of Texas, commented that the law "deserves to be placed on the trash heap of history." Read More
Lawsuits Filed Against Department of Homeland Security Seek Greater Transparency
Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) this week filed two lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Read More
DOJ’s Lawsuit Against South Carolina Latest Legal Challenge to State Immigration Laws
BY KAREN TUMLIN, MANAGING ATTORNEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against South Carolina, challenging the state’s extreme anti-immigration law (SB 20). With this action, the Department of Justice charges that South Carolina, like Arizona and Alabama, have passed unconstitutional immigration laws. Civil rights groups (including the National Immigration Law Center) agree. Coalitions have filed suit in five states—Utah, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina—that passed their own Arizona-inspired laws in 2011. Fortunately, most of these states have seen their new, misguided laws lose much of their bite through civil rights coalition-led legal challenges. Here’s a round-up of the status of these legal cases. Read More
Alabama Law Enforcement, Courts Implementing New Law in Different Ways Across State
As if things weren’t chaotic enough in Alabama, reports now find that law enforcement and courts vary widely on how they apply the state's new immigration law, creating different rules and consequences for individuals depending on a judge or officer’s understanding of the law. As the controversial law (HB 56) itself continues to change as it makes its way through the court system, many law enforcement officers are unclear about which provisions still stand and have yet to receive the training necessary to implement the law. Judges, too, are on different pages on how to interpret the law, meaning that an individual might receive a different ruling from one judge to the next depending on the judge's understanding of the law. Read More
Restrictionist Lawyer Reveals Long-Term Assault on Immigrant Children
Today, the head of the legal arm of one of the most notorious restrictionist groups in the nation boldly admitted his work on Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law aims to end public education for the children of immigrants. Michael Hethmon of the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an offshoot of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), made no bones about being the author of the education provision in HB 56—which on its face requires public schools to determine the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents, but in reality chips away at children’s ability to get an education. Read More
Federal Appeals Court Enjoins Two Provisions of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked two controversial provisions of Alabama’s extreme immigration law, HB 56. A federal appeals court enjoined the provision requiring public school to determine the immigration status of enrolling students and the status of their parents as… Read More
Federal Judge Denies DOJ’s Request to Stay Alabama’s Immigration Law
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to stay her previous ruling last week which kept major portions of Alabama’s restrictive immigration law, HB 56, intact. Following the judge’s ruling, the DOJ requested a stay of the law pending… Read More
What You Should Know About Initial Rulings on Alabama’s Immigration Law
Yesterday’s initial rulings from Judge Sharon Blackburn over Alabama’s new anti-immigrant legislation are disturbing and disappointing on many fronts. Absent a reversal of her decision based on an emergency appeal, many provisions of the law that mirror those struck down in every other jurisdiction will go into effect. If so, everyone in Alabama will pay the price of the law’s implementation—and there can be no doubt that residents of Alabama with dark skin, a foreign sounding name, or an accent will face more questions, intrusions, and humiliations. From a legal perspective, however, declarations of a “victory” for Alabama by media outlets and anti-immigrants’ rights groups are premature. The truth is much more complicated. Read More
Federal Judge Rules to Keeps Key Provisions of Alabama’s Restrictive Immigration Law
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled to keep many of the key provisions in HB 56, Alabama’s restrictive immigration law recently challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and civil and immigrant rights groups. While Judge Blackburn ruled to enjoin some provisions of HB 56, she found that the DOJ and civil and immigrant rights groups did not meet “the requirements for a preliminary injunction” in its claim that major provisions—such as the section requiring schools to determine the immigration status of students’ and their parents’—are preempted by federal law. Signed by Governor Robert Bentley in June, HB 56 was challenged by civil rights groups, religious leaders and the DOJ on the basis that the law interferes with the federal enforcement of immigration laws and places undue burdens on local schools and federal agencies. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
