Legal System
A just and fair legal immigration system upholds due process and adherence to the rule of law, while effectively managing immigration. Our efforts work to uphold the best version of the system, holding government entities accountable for fairly enforcing policies and addressing injustices at all levels of government.
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).
Federal Court Upholds Immigrants’ Right To Reopen Cases From Outside the U.S.
Washington, D.C. – Today, a federal appellate court chastised the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for preventing noncitizens from reopening their cases from outside the United States. This important ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit repudiates the government’s view that immigration judges and the… Read More
Despite Limits, How Padilla v. Kentucky Will Endure
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the Padilla v. Kentucky opinion. Immigrant advocates rejoiced last spring when the Supreme Court made clear in Padilla v. Kentucky that criminal defense lawyers must inform noncitizen clients if pleading guilty to a particular crime could result in their deportation. Since then, the Court’s ruling has provided much-needed relief for many immigrants whose lawyers failed to properly advise them. At the same time, however, the immigrants’ rights community is realizing that the decision has its limits and will not help all noncitizens whose lawyers failed to give such advice in the past. Read More
Despite Limits, How Padilla v. Kentucky Will Endure
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the Padilla v. Kentucky opinion. Immigrant advocates rejoiced last spring when the Supreme Court made clear in Padilla v. Kentucky that criminal defense lawyers must inform noncitizen clients if pleading guilty to a particular crime could result in their deportation. Since then, the Court’s ruling has provided much-needed relief for many immigrants whose lawyers failed to properly advise them. At the same time, however, the immigrants’ rights community is realizing that the decision has its limits and will not help all noncitizens whose lawyers failed to give such advice in the past. Read More
A One-Man Wrecking Crew: New Report Details the Costly Career of Kris Kobach
It is hardly surprising that the newly elected Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, ran an election campaign which featured the baseless claim that “the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive” in the state. As a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes in detail, Kobach has built a long and varied career out of attacking immigrants; first in the Bush Administration, targeting legal immigrants from Muslim and Arab countries, and later as the architect of city ordinances and state laws targeting unauthorized, mostly Latino immigrants. Yet, while Kobach’s anti-immigrant initiatives have served to advance him politically and financially, virtually all of them have ended up being costly failures for which taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. Read More
Win, Lose or….Draw? The Supreme Court Tackles Arizona’s Employer Sanctions Law
Those following the Obama Administration’s legal challenge to Arizona’s SB 1070 have likely heard about “preemption”—the legal concept governing when state laws conflict with, and are therefore superseded by, acts of Congress. The heart of the dispute over SB 1070 is whether states have a right to provide assistance that the federal government does not want. No one knows if or how the Supreme Court will ultimately answer that question. But a number of hints may emerge when the Justices issue a ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, a case testing the legality of a different law known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act. Passed in 2007, the act imposed new requirements to prevent employers from hiring unauthorized workers, as well as harsh consequences for doing so. While the Justices’ questions during Wednesday’s oral argument offered reason for hope among immigrants’ rights advocates on one part of the law, they left the fate of the other unresolved. Read More
Kafka Revisited: Ninth Circuit Decision Protects Due Process Rights for Noncitizens
The basic tenet that you can’t be sued without knowing the charges against you and having a meaningful opportunity to defend yourself is a cornerstone of the U.S. judicial system. This concept of fundamental fairness ensures that people in courtrooms across the country have access to a discovery process that enables them to see the other side’s evidence. Plaintiffs and prosecutors are routinely required to produce documents that will be used to prove their cases so that defendants have a chance to respond. For too long, however, these kinds of procedures and protections have been denied to noncitizens in immigration court. Read More
Enforcing Your Way into the Red: Hazleton Could Learn an Expensive Immigration Lesson
Yet another locality learned the financial perils of passing an anti-immigrant law. Last Friday, a panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision to require the City of Hazelton, PA, to pay $2.4 million in legal fees to the Plaintiffs instead of their insurance carrier. The Plaintiffs (Pedro Lozano, Casa Dominicana of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition) accumulated legal fees when they challenged the constitutionality of the Hazleton law—a law which would have fined landlords renting to undocumented immigrants, denied businesses permits if they employed undocumented immigrants, and had the town investigate the legal status of an employee or tenant upon request of any citizen, business, or organization. Read More
Will the Fate of Arizona’s SB 1070 Hinge on the Law that Created the 287(g) Program?
It’s not every day that federal officials cite Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as a limit on—rather than an expansion of—the authority of local police to assist in immigration enforcement. But a veteran Justice Department attorney made just that point during arguments in a federal appeals court yesterday while defending an injunction against Arizona’s SB 1070. Read More
Supreme Court to Hear Two Cases Affecting Immigrants, Including a Case Challenging a Recent Anti-Immigrant Law
This week, the United States Supreme Court opened its October session. Among the cases it will hear is a challenge to a state law that sanctions employers for hiring unauthorized workers. This is the first case challenging the recent influx of state and local laws attempting to regulate immigrants and immigration and an opportunity for the Supreme Court to assert the federal government’s constitutional right to set immigration law. In the second immigration case, the Supreme Court must decide whether former citizenship law provisions—which imposed a five-year residency requirement for U.S. citizen fathers, but not mothers—violate equal protection. Read More
Legal Action Center Argues for Greater Federal Court Oversight of Immigration Decisions
Washington D.C. – In a continuing effort to promote greater federal court oversight of immigration decision-making, the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) recently submitted amicus (friend of the court) briefs in two cases involving motions to reopen. For noncitizens facing removal from the United States, a motion to… Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
