Immigration Courts
Immigration courts play a crucial role in ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently, providing due process to those facing removal. Learn more about issues facing the courts today and explore the actions we're taking to ensure the rights of immigrants are upheld and legal integrity is maintained.
Why is the Obama Administration Arguing that Undocumented Immigrants Should Not Practice Law?
Today, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that asks whether an undocumented immigrant may receive a license to practice law in California. The Committee of Bar Examiners – the entity charged with deciding who qualifies for a law license in California – supports admitting Sergio Garcia to the bar. So do some 48 organizations and 53 individuals who signed on to “friend of the court” briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court. Of the three opposing arguments filed, two came from individuals but the other came from an unexpected source: the Department of Justice. Not only did DOJ voluntarily weigh in with a hypertechnical argument that is tone deaf to the current debate over undocumented status in this country, but it took the same position in a Florida case involving a lawfully present and work-authorized recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Jose Godinez-Samperio. Even if there was a good legal argument for opposing admission of an unauthorized immigrant to the bar, the rationale makes little sense in the context of an individual who is a DACA beneficiary. In both cases, however, the result DOJ seeks would lead to less socio-economic inclusion of the very immigrants the Obama administration seeks to protect. Read More
Courts Continue to Reject Arizona Style Laws, Even as House Embraces SAFE Act
Last year, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the federal government, rather than the states, has both the responsibility and the authority to enforce immigration law. Leaving immigration enforcement to the whims of individual state legislatures and law enforcement officers was, according to the Court, likely to undermine the federal framework and interfere with U.S. foreign relations. Despite this resounding rejection of state immigration enforcement, or perhaps because of it, the House Immigration Subcommittee passed the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2278), which attempts to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s decision by empowering states and localities to enforce immigration law as they see fit. At the very time the country is pushing for a comprehensive federal overhaul of the immigration system, the presence of the SAFE Act threatens to cripple the success of those efforts. Read More
USCIS Approves First Green Cards for Same Sex Couples
On June 26, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of United States v. Windsor, in which it struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal laws. This law meant that the immigration agencies would not recognize lawful, same-sex marriages for any immigration purpose. Since the Court’s decision, the Obama administration has moved rapidly to allow U.S. citizens to petition for immigration benefits for their spouses, providing hope to an estimated 28,500 bi-national same-sex couples in the United States who might otherwise be separated by our immigration laws. Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Affirms Immigration Rights of Gay and Lesbian Couples
Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case United States v. Windsor, striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, on the basis that it violated equal protection under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. DOMA established an exclusively heterosexual definition of “marriage,” and denied same-sex couples any federal benefits, including immigration benefits. This is a historic day for gay and lesbian marriage rights, as DOMA disqualified same-sex couples from over a thousand federal benefits, and made same-sex couples in committed relationships second-class citizens in the eyes of the federal government. Read More
Lawsuit Seeks to Learn How Government Responds to Complaints of Misconduct by Immigration Judges
Washington, DC – The public has a right to know whether the government adequately investigates and resolves complaints alleging misconduct by immigration judges, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) said in a lawsuit filed today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit, filed under the Freedom of Information… Read More
Will Due Process Protections Be Preserved in Senate Mark-Up?
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its mark-up of Title III of S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. When the mark-up continues on Monday, Senators are likely to vote on amendments addressing immigration courts. These amendments will be crucial in determining whether the full Senate receives a bill that provides due process protections to immigrants in removal proceedings. Read More
Providing Noncitizens With Their Day in Court
Our legal system rests upon the principle that everyone is entitled to due process of law and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But for far too long, immigration courts have failed to provide noncitizens with a system of justice that lives up to this standard. A noncitizen has not truly had his day in court if he is removed without ever seeing a judge, if he does not have access to counsel and necessary evidence, or if the decision in his case receives only perfunctory review. The 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (“S. 744”) would take significant steps toward ensuring noncitizens have a fair hearing. This fact sheet explains some of the critical policy proposals found in S. 744 and the basis for them. A system without sufficient protections Deportation without a judge In the current system, many immigrants who are removed never see the inside of a courtroom. In fact, the majority of noncitizens are returned to their home countries through accelerated processes that do not include a hearing before a judge. Even immigrants who are entitled to hearings may not make it to court if an immigration agent convinces them to agree to be deported before their first hearing. More than 160,000 immigrants agreed to these “stipulated removal” orders between 2004 and 2010; the vast majority were unrepresented and in immigration detention. Those whose cases reach immigration court appear before overburdened judges with insufficient time and resources for the cases in front of them. Vulnerable immigrants without attorneys Read More
Bringing Fairness to the Immigration Justice System
Washington D.C. – Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee continues mark-up of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The Committee will complete work on Title Four and then begin to take up amendments related to Title Three, which addresses interior enforcement programs like E-Verify, as well… Read More
Eleventh Circuit Holds that Filing Limitations on Motions to Reopen Are Subject to Equitable Tolling
For Immediate Release Washington, D.C. – Over the last two weeks, the Eleventh Circuit issued two decisions holding that the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen are subject to equitable tolling. Noncitizens ordered removed in the Eleventh Circuit now may seek, under certain circumstances, to reopen… Read More
Immigration Reform is an LGBT Issue
By Victoria Neilson, Legal Director, Immigration Equality. This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in two cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, that will forever change the course of the struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality. While we are hopeful that the Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) thereby clearing the way for the federal government, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State, to honor our marriages, no one can predict with any certainty what the Court will do. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
