On April 25th, 2018 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides on President Trump’s highly scrutinized “travel ban”. The travel ban, now in its third iteration, prohibits entry of travelers from five Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya), as well as North Korea and government officials from Venezuela. Although previous versions of the travel ban were initially partially blocked by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland, the Supreme Court lifted such injunctions in December 2017.
Since Trump first issued his travel order, setting off widespread chaos at airports just a few days after his inauguration, the issue has strongly shaped public perceptions of the new administration. It has also led to a string of defeats in lower courts, where judges ruled that the measure exceeded Trump’s authority and, in some cases, said it reflected bias against Muslims.
However, the Supreme Court of the United States has provided a friendlier forum, on this topic. The justices issued a ruling in June 2017 that allowed the second version of the travel ban to take partial effect. Then, in December 2017, with only two dissenting votes, they set aside lower-court rulings to allow the administration to put the third version into practice, a strong indicator of where the majority was headed.
Justice Samuel A. Alito rejected the notion Trump’s order could be considered a “Muslim ban,” noting it does not apply to most of the largest Muslim nations.
“If you look at what was done, it does not look like a Muslim ban,” he said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s appointee, questioned whether the challengers had standing to sue in the first place. Foreigners overseas do not have rights in U.S. courts, he said. Plaintiffs who live in Hawaii sued, contending the travel ban was illegal, but “third parties can’t vindicate the rights of aliens,” Gorsuch said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy portrayed the issue before the court as one of national security in which the chief executive, not the judicial branch, should be entrusted to weigh possible threats from foreign visitors.
A final decision by the Court is expected at the end of June. Meanwhile, the current version of the travel ban remains in effect during deliberation. Continue reading
Posted in Immigration
- Tagged Beverly Hills Immigration attorney, bona fide relationship, California immigration attorney, close existing relationships, DACA, DACA delay, DACA rescission, DAPA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DREAM Act, DREAMERS, executive order, how will I be affected by DACA, I-601 waiver, immigration attorney, immigration attorney Beverly Hills, immigration updates, Jeff Sessions DACA, Muslim ban, President Trump, Travel Ban, Travel Ban Countries, Travel Ban Update, Trump Ban, Trump DACA, Trump immigration policy, what happened to DACA, what happened to DAPA
On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is being rescinded. The Department of Homeland Security personnel will take all appropriate actions to execute a wind-down of the program, consistent with the parameters established in Tuesday’s Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (hereinafter, “Memo”).
On September 6, 2017, fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to stop the rescission. During his candidacy for president, Donald Trump said that he intended to end DACA on “day one” of his presidency.
What Is DACA?
On June 15, 2012, under the Obama Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. Continue reading
Posted in Immigration
- Tagged DACA, DACA delay, DACA rescission, DAPA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DREAM Act, DREAMERS, how will I be affected by DACA, I-601 waiver, immigration updates, Jeff Sessions DACA, Trump DACA, Trump immigration policy, what happened to DACA, what happened to DAPA
by Jennifer Grady, Esq. and Grady Firm Law Clerk
With the American presidential election cycle in full swing, immigration reform continues to be a heated and controversial topic. The presidential campaign front-runners, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, have widely divergent perspectives on the issue. Below is a look at each candidate’s stance on the ability of undocumented immigrants to gain legal US citizenship. Continue reading
Posted in Immigration, Uncategorized
- Tagged 2016 election issues, 2016 presidential election, clinton immigration, clinton orlando, DACA, DAPA, donald trump, EB-5 attorney, EB-5 Investor Program, hillary clinton, Immigration, immigration attorney, Immigration Lawyer, immigration reform, trump immigration, trump orlando, trump wall, us election
by Jennifer A. Grady, Esq. and Anthony Mance, Esq.
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes in order to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.
However, on February 16, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas issued a ruling that has led to the temporary suspension of President Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration. The ruling prevents the Obama administration from implementing the proposed expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) until the constitutionality of the executive actions can be determined. Continue reading