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.
Out of Legal Options, Alabama Files Petition at Supreme Court
Nearly five months ago, a federal appeals court in Atlanta issued a set of opinions that invalidated numerous provisions of Alabama HB 56, the most pernicious state immigration law in the country. After Alabama asked the full court to reconsider its rulings, the active judges unanimously rejected its request. Out of other legal options, the state filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to revive some (though not all) of the invalidated provisions. While the odds remain small that the Justices will take up the case, granting the petition could set up another legal showdown similar to the case over Arizona SB 1070. Read More
Federal Judges Remind Government to Consider Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of a law enforcement agency or officer to decide whether and to what degree to enforce the law in particular cases. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative continues to be a successful example of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context. However the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often ignores other non-DACA-related cases where prosecutorial discretion would be equally appropriate. Read More
Arizona Faces Lawsuit over DACA Driver’s License Policy
Less than six months after it received a stinging rebuke from the Supreme Court, Arizona today was hit with another major lawsuit over its punitive immigration policies—this time challenging its practice of denying driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Filed in federal court in Phoenix, the class-action suit challenges an executive order issued by Gov. Jan Brewer making DACA recipients ineligible for all public benefits. Although the suit is limited to Arizona’s policy, the outcome could affect DACA recipients’ ability to obtain driver’s licenses in other states as well. Read More
Council Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Conduct
The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center argued that local police violated the Fourth Amendment by unnecessarily prolonging an individual’s detention based solely on the suspicion that he was not lawfully present in the United States. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court cautioned against prolonging a detention to… Read More
Watchdog Report Offers Misdiagnosis of Immigration Court Backlog
With more than 325,000 cases pending at the start of October, our nation’s immigration courts are indisputably operating under a crushing backlog. The only question is whether and how it can be resolved. In a little-noticed report issued in early November, the Inspector General of the Justice Department levied a number of criticisms regarding the length of time needed to decide individual cases. Although the report makes a few valid points, its ultimate recommendations would prioritize the quantity of decisions made over the quality of decisions issued. Read More
Council Commends Latest Ruling Allowing Immigration Judges to Consider Evidence of Hardship
Washington, D.C.—Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that will allow Immigration Judges to exercise discretion in cases involving lawful permanent residents (LPRs)… Read More
Supreme Court to Consider Reach of Padilla v. Kentucky
In its landmark decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court confirmed that criminal defense attorneys have a constitutional obligation to advise their clients if pleading guilty to a particular offense could lead to deportation. On Thursday,* the Justices will consider a follow-up question of critical importance for many immigrants placed in removal proceedings on account of bad legal advice: whether the ruling applies to cases that became final before the decision was issued. Read More
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
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
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
