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.
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
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
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
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
Alabama Governor Signs Bill That Makes State’s Immigration Law Even Worse
Last week, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley publically criticized a bill intended to revise key sections of the state’s controversial immigration law (HB 56). He even announced a special legislative session to address his issues with the bill—namely, a provision that requires school officials to check the immigration status of enrolling students and that of their parents and a provision that requires Alabama’s Department of Homeland Security to publically post the names of undocumented immigrants on their website. The day after his announcement, however, Governor Bentley backpedaled his criticisms, declared the legislature didn’t have the “appetite to address further revisions,” and signed the bill (HB 658) into law. Read More
Obama Administration Files Suit Against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Earlier today, the Department of Justice filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office alleging a pattern and practice of discriminatory behavior against Latinos. According to the complaint, officers under Arpaio’s command targeted Latino drivers during traffic stops and neighborhood sweeps, and used ethnic slurs against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency in county jails. The suit, which was filed in federal court in Arizona, comes five months after the Department’s Civil Rights Division issued a report based on an extensive investigation that contained similar findings. Read More
Supreme Court Asks Hard Questions at Oral Arguments Over Arizona SB 1070
Almost two years to the day after Arizona enacted the notorious immigration law known as SB 1070, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what could be the first of many cases over the validity of the measure. Although most critics of the law have focused on its potential for civil rights violations, the only question before the Justices was whether federal immigration laws “preempt” four provisions of SB 1070 that were blocked by lower courts. While the ultimate fate of those provisions will not be known until a ruling is announced, a few preliminary observations can be made based on the questions posed by the Justices. Read More
Five Things to Know Before the Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Arizona SB1070
In less than 48 hours, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, the long-anticipated dispute over the legality of SB 1070. More than any case in recent history, the dispute raises fundamental questions about the role of states in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The Court’s decision could thus determine not only the future of SB 1070, but the fate of other state immigration laws being challenged in court and the odds of similar laws being passed around the country. While much ink has already been spilled about the case, below we’ve highlighted five important facts to remember before the argument. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
