Refugees

REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS

What's New?

Federal District Judge Finds DACA Program in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
September 14, 2023. Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has issued his Memorandum Opinion and Oder in the Texas v. United States case, challenging the final rules issues by the Biden Administration for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). This case was before the court on remand from the Fifth Circuit following previous rulings on the memoranda that originally deceloped the program. Hanen found the DACA program in violation of the Administration Procedure Act.
Read the Memorandum Opinion.

House Committee Reports that the Real Reason Behind the Trump Administration Push for Citizenship Question on the Census was Apportionment and Electoral Change
July 20, 2022. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D.NY), Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, today released a report in the form of a memorandum for the committee concerning the committee's investigation of the Trump administration's press to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. The Supreme Court had previously overturned the administration's effort to include it. Secretary of Commerce Ross had argued that the question was included at the request of the Justice Department to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court concluded that those claims were a pretext and not the actual reason. The Court made clear its conclusion that the Secretary's claims were there to avoid an explanation of the real reasons for including the question. Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2574 (2019). The House Committee investigated the matter and was able to make progress after the Biden administration set aside the Trump administration's claims that the communications on the matter were privileged. The memorandum released today asserts that the actual reason for the Trump administration's effort to include the question had to do with affecting congressional apportionment and along with that electoral votes. Representative Maloney has introduced H.R. 8326 the "Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act" in response to the findings of the report and concern about future Census issues.
   In the press release issued by the Committee today announcing the report, there was a presentation of the key findings of the investigations. "Below are key findings from the Committee's memo: Contrary to his testimony to Congress, congressional apportionment was central to Commerce Secretary Ross's efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Documents obtained by the Committee show that Secretary Ross requested and received a detailed memorandum exploring the legality of adding a citizenship question to the census for purposes of apportionment, along with other potential rationales for adding a citizenship question. A secret, undated draft of Mr. Uthmeier's legal memo warned that using a citizenship question for apportionment would likely violate the Constitution. The draft obtained by the Committee expressed skepticism about the legality of including a citizenship question, noting, 'Over two hundred years of precedent, along with substantially convincing historical and textual arguments suggest that citizenship data likely cannot be used for purposes of apportioning representatives.' Commerce officials downplayed legal concerns and altered the memo to suggest the citizenship question could be used for apportionment. In later drafts of the Uthemeier memo, another political appointee, Earl Comstock, changed or removed language indicating that adding a citizenship question was likely unconstitutional. Officials also added language that emphasized the Secretary's discretion when considering adding the citizenship question. The final memo reached essentially the opposite conclusion of the initial draft, asserting that 'there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about adding a citizenship question' and claiming, 'there are bases for legal arguments that the Founding Fathers intended for the apportionment count to be based on legal inhabitants.' Trump Administration officials at the Department of Commerce, including Secretary Ross, secretly steered the Justice Department towards the pretextual rationale for adding the citizenship question. Mr. Uthmeier hand delivered his legal memo to DOJ, along with a hand-written note highlighting the pretext of using a citizenship question to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The note stated that Secretary Ross 'thinks DOJ would have a legitimate use of data for VRA purposes.'"
   Read the Memorandum from the Committee Chair of July 20.
   Read the House Committee Press Release Regarding the Memorandum.
   Read the text of H.R. 8326 the "Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act."

Supreme Court Upholds Biden Administration's Repeal of the Trump Era "Remain in Mexico" Policy
June 30, 2022. In one of its last two rulings this term, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Biden v. Texas, upholding the Biden administration's repeal of the so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy. In a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security-under the administration of President Trump-established the Migrant Protection Protocols. That program provided for the return to Mexico of non-Mexican aliens who had been detained attempting to enter the United Statesillegally from Mexico. On Inauguration Day 2021, the newadministration of President Biden announced that the program would be suspended the next day, and later that yearsought to terminate it. The District Court and the Court of Appeals, however, held that doing so would violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The District Court also held that the attempted rescission of the program was inadequately explained in violation of the AdministrativeProcedure Act. While its appeal was pending, the Government took new action to terminate the policy with a moredetailed explanation. But the Court of Appeals held that this new action was not separately reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The questions presented are whether the Government's rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols violated theImmigration and Nationality Act and whether the Government's second termination of the policy was a valid finalagency action." Biden v. Texas, Slip. op. at 1-2.He concluded by finding that: "For the reasons explained, the Government's rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action." Id. at 25. Much of the opinion focused on the discretion conveyed in the statute by its use of the term "may" instead of mandatory language that would have limited the administration's options.
   Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion, but also added a concurrence. Justice Alito wrote a dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
   For more information on the earlier stages of this case and the policy, see the post for August 30, 2021 on this webpage.
   Read the Opinion in Biden v. Texas.

Supreme Court Rejects Biden Administration Request for an Injunction to Halt Trump Era "Remain in Mexico" Policy for Asylum Seekers at the U.S. Southern Border Pending Full Adjudication of that Issue
August 30, 2021. The Supreme Court has denied a request from the Biden administration to stay a permanent injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas its efforts to end the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy for asylum seekers at the U.S. Southern border. In issuing its denied, the Court's order in Biden v. Texas noted: "The applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious." The suspension of the Trump policy came following a January 20 memorandum from the then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. Texas, joined by other states, brought suit against the policy change in April in federal district court in that state. That court issued a permanent injunctions against the change on August 13. The Biden administration sought a stay pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals. In denying the stay, the Supreme Court noted: "Our order denying the Government’s request for a stay of the District Court injunction should not be read as affecting the construction of that injunction by the Court of Appeals." Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan would have granted the stay.
   Read the Supreme Court's Order Denying the Application for a Stay.
   Read the August 13 District Court Memorandum and Order.
   Read the Biden Administration's Application for a Stay.
   Read the January DHS Secretary Memorandum Suspending the Trump Policy.

Federal District Court Issues Injunction Against Trump Administration Policy of Turning Children Away at the Border Without Consideration of Asylum Claims
November 19, 2020. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday issued a preliminary injunction against the administration in P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of thousands of children turned away at the U.S./Mexico border without consideration of asylum claims under an administration policy claiming it was necessary to take the action because of COVID-19. Judge Sullivan accepted a report and recommendations prepared by a U.S. magistrate judge, certified a class action in the case, and granted a preliminary injunction against the administration, refusing to stay his order pending appeal. He found that the plaintiff was "likely to succeed on the merits of his claim" that the administration exceeded their statutory authority in taking these actions against the children.
Read the Memorandum Opinion.
Read the ACLU Press Release on the Case.

U.S. District Court Finds Wolf Not Lawfully in Office at DHS When He Suspended DACA Program
November 16, 2020. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled Saturday that Chad Wolf "was not lawfully serving as the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security when he issued the July 28 memorandum" suspending the DACA program. Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, Memorandum and Order, at 2. This action came following Wolf's July 28 which came just a month after the Supreme Court found his previous actions in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
   Read the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
   Read Wolf's July 28 Memorandum.
   Read the Supreme Court Opinion in DHS v. California.

Three Judge Federal District Court Blocks Trump Effort to Limit Census Count
September 11, 2020. A three judge federal district court in the Southern District of New York has issued an opinion ruling against the administration in a case brought by states, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations against a mandate from President Trump in a presidential memorandum that orderd the Commerce Department to report census data in one list with all residents and nother list that included only citizens and legal residents. The court stated its conclusion clearly and directly at the outset of its opinion.'The Presidential Memorandum violates the statutes governing the census and apportionment in two clear respects. First, pursuant to the virtually automatic scheme established by these interlocking statutes, the Secretary is mandated to report a single set of numbers--[t]he tabulation of total population by States' under the decennial census--to the President, and the President, in turn, is required to use the same set of numbers in connection with apportionment. By directing the Secretary to provide two sets of numbers, one derived from the decennial census and one not, and announcing that it is the policy of the United States to use the latter in connection with apportionment, the Presidential Memorandum deviates from, and thus violates, the statutory scheme. Second, the Presidential Memorandum violates the statute governing apportionment because, so long as they reside in the United States, illegal aliens qualify as 'persons in' a 'State' as Congress used those words. On those bases, we declare the Presidential Memorandum to be an unlawful exercise of the authority granted to the President by statute and enjoin Defendants--but not the President himself--from including in the Secretary's report to the President any information concerning the number of aliens in each State 'who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.' Presidential Memorandum, 85 Fed. Reg. at 44,680. Because the President exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress by statute, we need not, and do not, reach the overlapping, albeit distinct, question of whether the Presidential Memorandum constitutes a violation of the Constitution itself." New York v. Trump, Opinion and Order, at 5.
Read the Three Judge Court's Opinion.
Read the July Presidential Memorandum.

Judge Gee Issues Order Against DHS Use of Hotels to House Children Before Deportation
September 8, 2020. Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California who has long had jurisdiction over the implementation of the so-called Flores settlement, originally reached in 1997, has ruled that the recent program instituted by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security policy COVID-19 policy regarding placing minors in hotels pending rapid expulsion from the U.S. does not comply with the settlement. She found, inter alia, that: "On balance, the Court finds that the hotel program is not safe with respect to preventing minors from contracting COVID-19 or providing the type of care and supervision suitable for unaccompanied minors." at 15. She also found with respect to the children's access to counsel that the DHS policy and practice is: "woefully inadequate and not substantially compliant." at 16. Although she recognized the challenges associated with COVID-19, Judge Gee concluded: "This Court is sensitive to the exigencies created by COVID-19 and recognizes that the pandemic may require temporary, emergency modifications to the immigration system to enhance public safety. But that is no excuse for DHS to skirt the fundamental humanitarian protections that the Flores Agreement guarantees for minors in their custody, especially when there is no persuasive evidence that hoteling is safer than licensed facilities. While the legality of the Closure Order generally is beyond the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court is obligated to ensure that minors in DHS custody are not left in a legal no-man’s land, where no enforceable standards apply. Defendants may not exploit Title 42 to send children in their legal custody “off into the night.” Flores v. Sessions, 862 F.3d at 878 n.17 (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 295 (1993))." Id. at 16-17. She ordered compliance with the settlement and an end to the hotel practice pending further proceedings.
Read the Order Granting the TRO.

Federal District Court Issues an Injunction Against Public Charge Rule
July 30, 2020. Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Sourthern District of New York yesterday issued a nationwide injunction against implementation of the Trump administration's "public charge" rule restricting immigration.
Read the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Read the New York Attorney General's Press Release on the Judge's Ruling.

Massachusetts Attorney General Files Suit Against ICE Policy on Behalf of 18 States
July 13, 2020. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts on behalf of Massachusetts and 16 other states plus the District of Columbia seeking an injunction against the ICE policy on international students and online courses announced a week ago (see posts below). Like the California and Harvard cases, the Massachusetts suit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The other states joining the suit include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Read the Complaint.
Read the Massachusetts Attorney General Press Release.

California Attorney General Sues to Challenge DHS International Student Action
July 10, 2020. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the new ICE policy on international students seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. Like the Harvard and MIT suit, the California Attorney General alleges that the ICE action was arbitrary and capricious and that the agency did not undertake a notice and comment rulemaking process as required by the APA.
Read the Complaint.
Read the Attorney General's Press Release.

Universities Challenge Newest Trump Administration Policy on International Students
July 2, 2020. Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts against the new ICE policy announced yesterday (see post below for July 7), alleging a number of violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint includes three counts: "Count I (Violation of Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706) The July 6 Directive Is Arbitrary And Capricious Because It Fails To Consider Important Aspects Of The Problem Before The Agency [;] Count II (Violation of Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706) The July 6 Directive Is Arbitrary And Capricious Because It Fails To Offer Any Reasoned Basis That Could Justify The Policy [; and] Count III (Violation of Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706)The July 6 Directive Violates The APA's Requirement Of Notice-And-Comment Rulemaking. The complaint seeks a temporary restraining order to be followed by a declaratory judgment against the ICE action as well as a preliminary and then permanent injunction again enforcement of the policy by ICE.
Read the Complaint.

ICE Issues Restrictions on Student Visas in Schools Using Online Courses During COVID-19 Pandemic
July 7, 2020. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an announcement yesterday entitled "SEVP modifies temporary exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online courses during fall 2020 semester." The agency announced: "The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) announced modifications Monday to temporary exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online classes due to the pandemic for the fall 2020 semester. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security plans to publish the procedures and responsibilities in the Federal Register as a Temporary Final Rule. Temporary exemptions for the fall 2020 semester include:
   Nonimmigrant F-1 and M-1 students attending schools operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States. The U.S. Department of State will not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs that are fully online for the fall semester nor will U.S. Customs and Border Protection permit these students to enter the United States. Active students currently in the United States enrolled in such programs must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status. If not, they may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings.
   Nonimmigrant F-1 students attending schools operating under normal in-person classes are bound by existing federal regulations. Eligible F students may take a maximum of one class or three credit hours online.
   Nonimmigrant F-1 students attending schools adopting a hybrid model-that is, a mixture of online and in person classes--will be allowed to take more than one class or three credit hours online. These schools must certify to SEVP, through the Form I-20, "Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status," certifying that the program is not entirely online, that the student is not taking an entirely online course load this semester, and that the student is taking the minimum number of online classes required to make normal progress in their degree program. The above exemptions do not apply to F-1 students in English language training programs or M-1 students pursing vocational degrees, who are not permitted to enroll in any online courses.
   Schools should update their information in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 10 days of the change if they begin the fall semester with in-person classes but are later required to switch to only online classes, or a nonimmigrant student changes their course selections, and as a result, ends up taking an entirely online course load. Nonimmigrant students within the United States are not permitted to take a full course of study through online classes. If students find themselves in this situation, they must leave the country or take alternative steps to maintain their nonimmigrant status such as a reduced course load or appropriate medical leave.
   Due to COVID-19, SEVP instituted a temporary exemption regarding online courses for the spring and summer semesters. This policy permitted nonimmigrant students to take more online courses than normally permitted by federal regulation to maintain their nonimmigrant status during the COVID-19 emergency.
   F-1 nonimmigrant students pursue academic coursework and M-1 nonimmigrant students pursue vocational coursework while studying in the United States. Last Reviewed/Updated: 07/06/2020"
   Read the ICE Annoucement on the ICE Website.

District Court Vacates Trump Administration Asylum Rule
July 2, 2020. Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has vacated a rule issued by the Trump administration in 2019 that required asylum seekers to demonstrate that they first applied for asylum in another country before a claim would be processed at the U.S. southern border. He concluded: "that the Rule is not exempt from the APA' s notice-and-comment procedures. Because the Departments unlawfully dispensed with those requirements, they issued the Rule 'without observance of procedure required by law." and therefore in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition v. Trump, Memorandum Opinion at 47.
Read the Opinion.

Supreme Court Denies Habeas Corpus Hearing Rights to Asylum Seekers
June 26, 2020. Justice Samuel Alito has written an opinion for four other members of the Court overturning a decision of the Ninth Circuit that the denial of the opportunity for habeas corpus consideration for asylum seekers facing expedited removal was an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. Justice Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment which was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Sotomayor dissented and her opinion was joined by Justice Kagan.
Read the Opinion.

Supreme Court Finds Trump Administration Termination of "Dreamers" Policy Arbitrary and Capricious
June 18, 2020. Writing for the Supreme Court majority in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Chief Justice Roberts held that the Trump administration's actions rescinding the DACA policy (more commonly known as the Dreamers program) was arbitary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Chief Justice and three other justices did not find a sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent to provide basis for concluding that the administration's actions violated the requirements of equal protection of the law. Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch and Alito, filed an opinion concurring in the equal protection ruling, but dissenting from the rest of the opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed his own dissenting opinion, but concurring with the equal protection finding.
   It is important to note that the ruling was directed at the manner in which the administration rescinded the policy and not whether the administration could rescind the policy if it did so in the proper manner. Roberts wrote: "The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so." Id. at 9. Hence, the Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of the ruling. It remains to be seen whether the administration will pursue the effort to rescind further.
   California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who took the lead for the his state and the other challengers, issued a press release lauding the Court's ruling.
   Read the Opinion.
   Read the California Attorney General's Press Release on the Opinion.

President Uses COVID-19 Claims to Issue Proclamation Blocking New Green Cards
April 27, 2020. Claiming that new applicants for permanent residency would pose a threat to the U.S. Labor Market, President Trump has issued Proclamation 10014 asserting that he has authority to blocking for 60 days the processing of application for immigration and the issuance of new green cards. Given that this proclamation is not matching by a similar restriction of temporary work visas in order to allow a wide range of guest workers into the county, it is clear that there is no connection to the virus itself and is not meant to prevent workers from undertaking employment in the U.S. and is highly likely to face multiple legal challenges. Hence, the proclamation very pominently includes a severability provision. The President has also indicated his intention to expand on this action. Indeed, section 6 of the proclamation provides: "Within 30 days of the effective date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall review nonimmigrant programs and shall recommend to me other measures appropriate to stimulate the United States economy and ensure the prioritization, hiring, and employment of United States workers."
Read the Proclamation.

Inspector General Issues Report Harshly Critical of Treatment of Children and Families Under Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Policy
March 6, 2020. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services has issued a report sharply critical not only of HHS but also more broadly of the Trump administration's so-called "Zero Tolerance" policy that separated parents and children at the Mexican border and the resulting delays in reunification and proper treatment of the children in the meantime. The report entitled Communication and Management Challenges Impeded HHS's Response to the Zero-Tolerance Policy finds that: "Interagency communication failures and poor internal management decisions left HHS unprepared for the zero-tolerance policy. Specifically, interagency channels for coordinating immigration policy across Federal departments were not used to notify HHS of the zero-tolerance policy in advance. Meanwhile, key senior HHS officials did not act on staff’s repeated warnings that family separations were occurring and might increase. HHS's lack of planning for the possibility of larger-scale family separation left the Department unable to provide prompt and appropriate care for separated children when the zero-tolerance policy was implemented. Without sufficient bed capacity, HHS could not always place separated children in care provider facilities within 72 hours (as required by law), leaving hundreds inappropriately detained in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody. Care provider facilities facing an unexpected increase in young, separated children encountered numerous challenges to meeting their unique needs. Further, because no procedures or systems had been established to track separated families across HHS and DHS for later reunification, HHS struggled to identify separated children. HHS also experienced challenges coordinating the reunification effort under overlapping court-imposed requirements. Additionally, OIG found that care provider facilities faced significant operational challenges at every stage of the reunification process. Facilities encountered difficulties locating and communicating with parents in DHS or Department of Justice (DOJ) custody as well as determining whether parents and children could be safely reunified. Facilities also reported that guidance and directives from HHS related to separated children were poorly communicated. HHS has taken steps to improve tracking of separated children, but the procedures rely on manual processes that are vulnerable to error. HHS also continues to experience difficulties obtaining information from DHS about parents' criminal backgrounds, impeding HHS's ability to provide appropriate care and identify sponsors to whom children can be safely released." Report in Brief Summary.
   Read the IG report.
   Read IG's Press Release on the Report.
   Access the HHS Inspector General Website.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Ruling Against Trump Administration Program Requiring Asylum Seekers to Remain in Mexico While Processing Claims
February 28, 2020. A panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court preliminary injunction in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump against implementation of the Trump administration's rules requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico pending processing of their claim in the United States and imposes penalties in the form of an adverse "credible fear" decision if they try to enter the U.S. without permission. Although a panel of the Ninth Circuit denied a stay, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal. See the entry on this webpage of September 12. The panel agreed with the district court that the rule together with the proclamation were not authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act and is therefore "not in accordance with law" under the Administrative Procedure Act.The panel found that there was no basis for Chevron deference to the agency's interpretation of the statute because it clearly did not support the action, but also argued that "even if the text of section 1158(a) were ambiguous, the Rule fails at the second step of Chevron because it is an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of that statutory provision." Opinion at 40. The panel concluded that: "Even if we agreed that the text of section 1158(a) is ambiguous, the Rule flouts this court’s and the BIA's discretionary, individualized treatment of refugees' methods of entry, and infringes upon treaty commitments we have stood by for over fifty years." Id. at 48. The panel also concluded that the rule failed the notice and comment requirements as well as the 30 day publication requirement before implementation without meeting the requirements for any exceptions to those mandates.
Read the Opinion.

Federal District Blocks Trump Administration Order Allowing States to Refuse Refugees
January 16, 2020. Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland yesterday issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of President Trump's Executive Order 13888 issued in September, 84 Fed. Reg. 52,355 (September 26, 2019), that permitted that announced that "[T]he Federal Government .. . should resettle refugees only in those jurisdictions in which both the State and local governments have consented to receive refugees under the Department of State’s Reception and Placement Program." §1.It then mandated, in part, that "the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop and implement a process to determine whether the State and locality both consent, in writing, to the resettlement of refugees within the State and locality, before refugees are resettled within that State and locality under the Program." §2 That allowed states, of course, to withhold consent and Texas promptly announced its intentions to block refugee resettlement in the state. The case HIAS v. Trump, was brought in November by three organizations that provide refugee resettlement assistance, HIAS, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and Church World Service, represented by the International Assistance Project. The suit also challenged actions taken by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Secretary of Homeland Security under the order. Judge Messitte enjoined enforcement of the order but also the State Department's existing FY 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity for for Reception and Placement Program insofar as that policy implemented the executive order. As originally issued in November, that State Department notice required applicants to provide proof of consent by the states involved. Judge Messitee found it likely that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their complaint on grounds that the administration's actions violate the Refugee Act of 1980, present constitutional issues relative to federalism, and are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
   Read the Memorandum Opinion.
   Read the Judge's Order.
   Read Executive Order 13888.
   Read the Complaint in the case filed November 21, 2019.
   Read the Lutheran Immigration and Refugees Services Press Release on the Ruling.

District Court in Texas is the Latest to Issue Injunction Against Use of DOD Funds for Border Wall
December 11, 2019. Judge David Briones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is the latest judge to issue an injunction against the attempt by President Trump to use Department of Defense Funds to build portions of the border wall, this time a declaratory order and permanent injunction. This case was brought last February by the Niskanen Institute and Protect Democracy on behalf of El Paso County, Texas and the Border Network for Human Rights. Judge Briones issued a preliminary injunction in the case in October. This is different from the other litigation now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
   Read the Memorandum Opinion on the Permanent Injunction of December 11.
   Read the Memorandum Opinion on the Preliminary Injunction of October 11, 2019.
   Read the Complaint in El Paso County v. Trump.
   Read the Protect Democracy Press Release.
   Access the El Paso County Website.
   Access the Border Network for Human Rights Website.

Federal District Judge Rules Against Trump Administration Expedited Removal Policy
September 29, 2019. Judge Ketanji Broan Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's expedited removal policy announced in July that had marked a dramatic change from the policy that had existed before that. The American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP brought the suit on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups Make the Road New York, LUPE (La Union del Pueblo Entero), and We Count. As Judge Jackson Brown explained, "Prior to July 23, 2019, DHS had authorized expedited removal with respect to undocumented non-citizens who arrived in the United States by land only if such persons were encountered near the border and had been in the country for no longer than 14 days. . . . In a 'Notice' that DHS published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2019 (more than two and half years after President Donald Trump issued an executive order that demanded that DHS expand its established expedited removal practices), the agency instantly authorized line immigration-enforcement agents to apply expedited removal to non-citizens encountered anywhere in the United States for up to two years after the non-citizen arrived in the United States, effective immediately." Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Memorandum Opinion, at 2. She concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their arguments that the administration's action was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of rulemaking process requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
   Read the Memorandum Opinion.
   Read the Complaint filed in the Case in August.
   Read the Homeland Security Expedited Removal Notice published July 23, 2019.
   Read the ACLU press release on the case.

Federal District Judge Blocks Trump Administration Effort to End Flores Settlement Protections for Children
September 27, 2019. Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California yesterday issued rulings blocking the Trump administration's efforts to terminate the the Flores settlement agreement that imposed constraints on the manner in which federal authorities could detain and supervise minors in immigration cases. She issued a permanent injunction rejecting the administration's efforts to end the Flores settlement. "1. The Flores Settlement Agreement remains in effect and has not been terminated; 2. Because the regulations, published on August 23, 2019, entitled 'Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Children,' 84 Fed. Reg. 44,932-44,535 ('the New Regulations'), fail to implement and are inconsistent with the relevant and substantive terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement, including Paragraphs 9 and 40 of the Agreement, Defendants shall continue to comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement until they publish final regulations in compliance with the Agreement, including Paragraphs 9 and 40; and 3. Defendants are permanently enjoined from applying, implementing, or enforcing the New Regulations."
   State attorneys general from 19 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia), led by the California attorney general had also filed suit in that court against the rule administration's new regulations published on August 23 entitled "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children" seeking to abandon the Flores settlement and impose new rules for incarceration of asylum seekers and specifically including children that was also at issue in the case Flores v. Barr case in which Judge Gee ruled yesterday. (See also the posting for August 27, 2019 below.)
   Read the Judge Gee's Order in Flores v. Barr.
   Read the Permanent Injunction.
   Read the Complaint in California v. McAleenan filed August 26 against the DHS rule "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children."
   Read the DHS Rule Published August 23 rule "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children."

Supreme Court Stays District Court Injunction Against Trump Administration Asylum Policy Change
September 12, 2019. The Supreme Court has stayed, pending appeal, an injunction issued by Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that he imposed against the Trump administration's latest change to asylum policy. The case was launched following publication on July 16 by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security of an Interim Final Rule entitled "Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications." 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019) "The effect of the Rule," according to Judge Tigar, "is to categorically deny asylum to almost anyone entering the United States at the southern border if he or she did not first apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country." Judge Tigar concluded that "the Rule 'is arbitrary and capricious and so cannot carry the force of law.'" East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, at 39. The case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit and the stay will remain in effect until that court issues its ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear any further appeal in the matter.
   Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent to the Court's order joined by Justice Ginsburg. She warned: "The rule here may be, as the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the asylum statute. It may also be arbitrary and capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere-without affording the public a chance to weigh in. Setting aside the merits, the unusual history of this case also counsels against our intervention. This lawsuit has been proceeding on three tracks: In this Court, the parties have litigated the Government's stay request. In the Ninth Circuit, the parties are briefing the Government's appeal. And in the District Court, the parties recently participated in an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record. Indeed, just two days ago the District Court reinstated a nationwide injunction based on new facts. See East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, No. 4:19-cv-4073, Doc. 73 (ND Cal., Sept. 9, 2019). Notably, the Government moved to stay the newest order in both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit. (Neither court has resolved that request, though the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to allow further deliberation.) This Court has not considered the new evidence, nor does it pause for the lower courts to resolve the Government's pending motions. By granting a stay, the Court simultaneously lags behind and jumps ahead of the courts below. And in doing so, the Court sidesteps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government to implement a rule that bypassed the ordinary rulemaking process. I fear that the Court's precipitous action today risks undermining the interbranch governmental processes that encourage deliberation, public participation, and transparency." Barr v. East Bay Sancturary Covenant, Dissent from Order Granting Stay, at 4-5.
   Read the Supreme Court Order Granting the Stay and Justice Sotomayor's Dissent (Joined by Justice Ginsburg).
   Read the September 9 District Court Order Restoring the Nationwide Injunction.
   Read the July 24 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction.
   Read Order Granting Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the Solicitor General's Petition for Stay in the Supreme Court.
   Read the DOJ/DHS Interim Final Rule.
   Read the complaint in the case.

Multiple States Seek Injunctions Against Latest Trump Asylum Policy Changes
August 27, 2019. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra yesterday announced an effort by attorneys general to obtain a preliminary injunction, as he put it, "to block the Trump Administration's Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule, known as the "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Public Charge Rule,' from taking effect while litigation continues." This suit was brought by California, D.C., Oregon, Maine, and Pennsylvania.
   State attorneys general from 19 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia), led by the California attorney general also filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the rule published on August 23 entitled "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children" seeking to abandon the Flores settlement and impose new rules for incarceration of asylum seekers and specifically including children.
   Read the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the Public Charge Rule.
   Read the California Attorney General's Press Release on the Public Charge Rule Case.
   Read So-Called Public Charge Rule published by DHS on August 14.
   Read the Complaint in California v. McAleenan filed August 26 against the DHS rule "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children."
   Read the California Attorney General's Press Release on this Suit
   Read the DHS Rule Published August 23 rule "Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children."

Federal Court Issues Injunction Against Latest Trump Administration Asylum Policy Change
August 9, 2019. Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's latest change to asylum policy. The case was launched following publication on July 16 by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security of an Interim Final Rule entitled "Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications." 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019) "The effect of the Rule," according to Judge Tigar, "is to categorically deny asylum to almost anyone entering the United States at the southern border if he or she did not first apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country." Judge Tigar concluded that "the Rule 'is arbitrary and capricious and so cannot carry the force of law.'" East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, at 39.
   Read Order Granting Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the DOJ/DHS Interim Final Rule.
   Read the complaint in the case.

Trump Administration Effort to Change Course and Move Forward with Citizenship Census Question Produces Judicial Response Sarting with Effort to Change the Legal Team
July 10, 2019. After conceding its defeat in the Supreme Court on its effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census in the Department of Commerce v. New York case, the Justice Department has made an abrupt about face under orders from the president. This comes in the wake of a year of litigation in which the administration consistently argued that the matter had to be resolved finally before the end of June to permit printing of the census materials which as the basis for the Supreme Court's rare decision to grant certiorari before judgment in the court of appeals. In the process, the Justice Department announced that its enture legal team would be changed, providing no significant information as to the reasons for that action. However, the plaintiffs asked the district court to deny that request and move forward with a ruling and orders on a permanent injunction in light of the Supreme Court opinion. The district court yesterday denied the Justice Department lawyers' request except for two previous members of the team who have left the department.
   Read Judge Furman's Memorandum Opinion and Order on the Motion to Change Counsel.
   Read the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.
   Read the Supreme Court's Opinion in Department of Commerce v. New Yrok.

Ninth Circuit Upholds District Court on Injunctions Against Trump Efforts to Reprogram Funds for Border Wall
July 3, 2019. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused an emergency petition for a stay of a district court injunction against the Trump administration's efforts to reprogram funds from the Department of Defense budget to be used for the president's project to build a wall on the U.S. southern border. Rejecting the administration's claim that language in "section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 to reprogram approximately $2.5 billion, moving the funds from DoD to DHS." Sierra Club v. Trump, 9th Circuit, July 3, 2019, Order, at 2. The panel found that: "We agree with Plaintiffs, however, that the requirements of section 8005 have not been met. Specifically, the need for which the funds were reprogrammed was not "unforeseen," and it was an item for which funds were previously "denied by the Congress." Defendants do not argue that their contrary interpretation of section 8005 is entitled to any form of administrative deference, and we hold that no such deference would be appropriate in any event. Because section 8005 did not authorize DoD to reprogram the funds—and Defendants do not and cannot argue that any other statutory or constitutional provision authorized the reprogramming—the use of those funds violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress. . . . We therefore hold that a stay of the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs an injunction is not warranted." (referring to U.S. Const. art I., § 9, cl. 7) Id. at 4-5.
   Read the Ninth Circuit Opinion.
   Read the District Court's June 28 Permanent Injunction Order
   Read the Judge Gilliam's May 24 Preliminary Injunction Order.

Responses to Trump Administration Asylum and Border Control Actions by Inspector General and in Court
July 3, 2019. Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration's recent policy to keep asylum seekers in detention pending the resolution of their cases. The case, Padilla v. ICE, was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and American Immigration Council.
   Also yesterday the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled "Management Alert – DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention of Children and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley" that explain its purpose as to notify you of urgent issues that require immediate attention and action. Specifically, we encourage the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take immediate steps to alleviate dangerous overcrowding and prolonged detention of children and adults in the Rio Grande Valley."
   Read the Order on the Preliminary Injunction.
   Read Attorney General's Order on Detention of Asylum Seekers.
   Read the DHS Inspector General Report.

Federal Asylum Officials File Amicus Brief Against Trump Administration Asylum Policy
June 27, 2019. A union representing federal asylum officals has field an amicus brief opposing the administration's policy of returning asylum seekers to the previous country in a case now pending before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
   Read the Amicus Brief of the Union Representing Federal Asylum Officials.
   Read the Brief of the ACLU for the Plaintiffs/Appellees.
   Read the Brief of the United States as Defendant-Appellant.
   Read the District Court Order Granting the Prelimnary Injunction.
   Read the Ninth Circuit Opinion Granting Emergency Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal.

District Court Issues Injunction Against Trump Administration Border Wall Actions
May 25, 2019. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has issued his opinion on the motion for a preliminary injunction against President Trump's border wall emergency declaration in Sierra Clib v. Trump. The case was brought by the Sierra Clib and by the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC) by the ACLU. The SBCC consists of some 60 organizations that are spread from Southern California through Texas. Gilliam concluded: "Defendants Patrick M. Shanahan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense, Kevin K. McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and all persons acting under their direction, are enjoined from taking any action to construct a border barrier in the areas Defendants have identified as Yuma Sector Project 1 and El Paso Sector Project 1 using funds reprogrammed by DoD under Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019." Id. at 55.
   Read the Judge Gilliam's Order.
   Read the Sierra Club press release on Sierra Club v. Trump.
   Read the ACLU Press Release on the case.
   Read the SBCC Press Release on the case.
   See the ACLU webpage on the case with key documents.

Trump Issues Presidential Memorandum Attempting to Force Policy Changes to Restrict Asylum
April 30, 2019. President Trump late yesterday issued a presidential memorandum that makes a number of demands on the Department of Homeland Security to make the asylum process more difficult and to require fees of those seeking asylum among other matters.
Read the Presidential Memorandum.

Attorney General Reverses Board of Immigration Appeals and a Prior Precedent to Deny Bail to Asylum Seekers
April 17, 2019. Attorney General Barr has issued an opinion in In the Matter of M-S, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019), reversing the Board of Immigration Appeals and the precedent on which it relied, In the Matter of X-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), concluding that: "An alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond. Such an alien must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole." Id. at 1.
Read the Attorney General's Opinion.

A Third District Court Rules Against Commerce Secretary Decision to Place Citizenship Question in Census
April 6, 2019. Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is now the third federal district judge to rule against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census. Judge Hazel concluded that "the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA" and that "the Defendants' actions violate the Constitution by unreasonably compromising the distributive accuracy of the Census contrary to the Enumeration Clause's mandate." Kravitz v. Department of Commerce, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 4. Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California and Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have previously ruled against Ross' action (see posting for March 7 below.)
The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari in the New York case and is scheduled to hear oral arguments on April 23. Key documents for that case are included with the March 7 posting below.
Read Judge Hazel's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Maryland case.

Judge Sabraw Issues Order Expanding Plaintiff Class in Family Unification Case
March 9, 2019. Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has issued a new order in a case that has been pending before him concerning family reunification following on Trump administration's zero tolerance policy that separated parents and children entering the U.S. He has expanded those who qualify for particpation in the class action lawsuit. Last June Judge Sabraw issued a preliminary injunction mandating that the Trump administration reunify families that were separated at the border within specified deadlines and in no case later than 30 days. However, as he explained in his order expanding the class: "On January 17, 2019, the OIG issued a Report on its investigation entitled, “Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement Care.” That Report reveals the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") began separating migrant families as early as July 1, 2017, well before the zero tolerance policy was publicly announced in May of 2018, and that pursuant to the policy, potentially "thousands" more families had been separated." Ms. L. v. U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), at 3. The expanded class now takes into account those families separated prior to the formal announcement of the policy in May 2018.
   Read March 8 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Class Definition.
   Read the HHS Inspector General Report.
   Read the June 2018 Order.

Another Federal District Court Rules Against Commerce Department Decision to Include a Citizenship Question in the 2020 Census
March 7, 2019. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California yesterday issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in California v. Ross, concluding that Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 census "violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Enumeration Clause of the United States Constitution." Findings and Conclusions, at 1. "As to the APA," Seeborg writes, "we need look no further than the Administrative Record to conclude that the decision to include the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious, represented an abuse of discretion, and was otherwise not in accordance with law. . . . Secretary Ross's reliance on VRA [Voting Rights Act] enforcement to justify inclusion of the citizenship question was mere pretext and the definition of an arbitrary and capricious governmental act." Id., at 3-4. As to the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution, he says, analysis "must turn on the impact of that question on the prospect of achieving the central constitutional purpose of an actual enumeration in 2020. Viewed through that lens, the inclusion of the question is contrary to the Constitution." Id., at 5.
   This new ruling comes as a previous ruling from Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's petition for certiorari before judgment and the Court has taken the case which is now pending. It is scheduled for oral argument on April 23. Key documents for that case are posted below.
    Judge Furman had written in his January 15 decision that: "There is no dispute that the Constitution, the Census Act, and the APA allow the Secretary of Commerce broad discretion over the design and administration of the decennial census. . . . Significantly, however, the discretion that they allow the Secretary is not unlimited.... Secretary Ross's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census-even if it did not violate the Constitution itself-was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside. To conclude otherwise and let Secretary Ross's decision stand would undermine the proposition-central to the rule of law-that ours is a 'government of laws, and not of men.' John Adams, Novanglus Papers, No. 7 (1775). And it would do so with respect to what Congress itself has described as 'one of the most critical constitutional functions our Federal Government performs.' 1998 Appropriations Act, § 209(a)(5), 111 Stat. at 2480-81.
   Read the Northern District of California Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
   Read the Southern District of New York Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
   Read the Government's Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment.
   Access the Supreme Court's Order Granting Certiorari Before Judgment.
   Read the Brief for the Department of Commerce.
   Read the Brief for Repondent New York.
   Read the Brief for Respondent New York Immigration Coalition.

House Debates Resolution to Terminate the Emergency Declared by President Trump
February 26, 2019. The House today is debating and will vote on H.J. Res. 46, a resolution to terminate the declaration of an emergency and directives with respect to the U.S. border. President Trump issued Proclamation 9844 "Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States" on February 15. The congressional action is being taken pursuant to Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.
   Read H.J. Res. 46.
   Read the President's Emergency Proclamation.
   Read the National Emergencies Act.

Bipartisan Groups of Former National Security Officials and Members of Congress Write Issue Open Declarations Critical of President Trump's Emergency Declaration and Directives
February 22, 2019. A bipartisan collection of 60 high-level former national officials who describe their fields of experience as "immigration, border security,counterterrorism, military operations, and our nation's relationship with other countries" have issued a declaration in which they reject the president's assertion of a national emergency and directives to move funds and people to build his border wall. This comes on the same day that the Project on Government published an open letter from 26 former Republican members of the House and Senate calling on Congress to pass a joint resolution of termination ending the emergency declared by President Trump. The president has indicated his intention to veto any such resolution.
   Read The Joint Declaration of U.S. Government Officials.
   Read the Letter from Former Republican Members of Congress.
   Read the National Emergencies Act.

Still More Litigation Filed Against Emergency Declaration by County of El Paso and Others
February 22, 2019. El Paso County, Texas and the Border Network for Human Rights are the latest plaintiffs to bring suit challenging President Trumps emergency declaration and directive to reprogram funds for a border wall. The suit was brought on their behalf by the Niskanen Institute and Protect Democracy with a variety of attorneys from across the politcial spectrum in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
   Read the Complaint in El Paso County v. Trump.
   Read the Protect Democracy Press Release.
   Access the El Paso County Website.
   Access the Border Network for Human Rights Website.

More Litigation Filed Against Emergency Declaration by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition
February 22, 2019. The American Civil Liberties Union, Sierra Club, ACLU of Texas, and the ACLU of Northern California along with the Sierra Club have filed suit on behalf of the Souther Border Communities Coaliton and the Sierra Club in another challenge to President Trump’s emergency powers declaration and directive on funding a wall. The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
   Read the Complaint.
   Read the ACLU Press Release on the Case.
   Read the Southern Border Communities Coalition Press Release on the Case.
   Read the Sierra Club Press Release on the Case.

California and Multiple States File Suit Challenging the Emergency
February 18, 2019. The Attorney General of California joined by fifteen other states has filed suit in the U.S. Ditrict Court for the Northern District of California challenging President Trump's emergency declaration and diversion of funds to construct a border barrier. The states are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Read the Complaint.

Third Circuit Upholds District Court Ruling Against Attorney General Sessions Effort to Pull Back Funds from So-Called Sanctuary Cities
February 18, 2019. The Third Circuit has issued an opinion affirming a June 2018 district court ruling that included an injunction against the Attorney General's effort to pull funding from so-called sanctuary cities. The district court had concluded that the AG's actions exceeded his statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, violated the separation of powers as an intrusion on the taxing and spending powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution, and commandeering state and local officials to enforce federal policy in light of the Tenth Amendment. The Third Circuit concluded: "After reviewing the three sources of authority offered by the Attorney General, we hold that Congress has not empow-ered the Attorney General to enact the Challenged Conditions. Because the Attorney General exceeded his statutory authority in promulgating the Challenged Conditions, we needn't reach Philadelphia's other arguments." Philadelphia v. Attorney General, at 31. Having found that the attorney general lacked the authority to take the actions that he ordered against the city, the Third Circuit determined that it did not need to reach the other issues addressed by the district court. The appeals court did find that the injunction was too broad in one respect since it went beyond what had been sought in the complaint. However, on the core issues, the Third Circuit ruled against the attorney general.
Read the Third Circuit Opinion.
Read the June 2018 District Court Opinion.

Legal Challenges to Presidential Border Wall Proclamation Begin
February 16, 2019. A number of states, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations have promised suits challenging President Trump's proclamation of an emergency on the southern border with some filed the same day the president took action. Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the County of El Paso brought suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Another advocacy group, Public Citizen, has filed suit on behalf of a number of individuals and also the Fronera Audobon Society against he emergency, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Governors and attorneys general in a number of states have also promised to challenge the proclamation and decision to take funds from appropriations previously approved for other purposes for the construction of a border wall. The CREW case is specifically a suit against the U.S. Department of Justice for allegedly violating the Freedom of Information Act requests of CREW for information related to the president's emergency declaration decision.
Read the CREW Complaint.
Read the Public Citizen Complaint.

GAO Announces "Science, Technology Assessment and Analytics (STAA) Team"
January 15, 2019. The U.S. Government Accountability Office today announced: "Today we launched a new Science, Technology Assessment and Analytics (STAA) team, expanding our work on cutting-edge science and technology issues. STAA will focus on: Technology assessments and technical services for the Congress, Auditing federal science and technology programs,Compiling and utilizing best practices in the engineering sciences, including cost, schedule, and technology readiness assessment,and Establishing an audit innovation lab to explore, pilot, and deploy new advanced analytic capabilities, information assurance auditing, and emerging technologies that are expected to greatly impact auditing practices." GAO "WatchBlog" post.
Read the GAO WatchBlog Post Announcing STAA.
Access the New STAA Website.

GAO Testifies on Reunification of Children
February 7, 2019. The Government Accountability Office has published the prepared testimony of Kathryn A. Larin, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, and Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, on "Agency Efforts to Identify and Reunify Children Separated from Parents at the Border" before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The summary of their statement explains: "Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials GAO interviewed said the agencies did not plan for the potential increase in the number of children separated from their parent or legal guardian as a result of the Attorney General's April 2018 "zero tolerance" memo because they were unaware of the memo in advance of its public release. The memo directed Department of Justice prosecutors to accept for criminal prosecution all referrals from DHS of offenses related to improper entry into the United States, to the extent practicable. As a result, parents were placed in criminal detention, and their children were placed in the custody of HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). DHS and ORR treated separated children as unaccompanied alien children (UAC)-- those under 18 years old with no lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody. Prior to April 2018, DHS and HHS did not have a consistent way to indicate in their data systems children and parents separated at the border. In April and July 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Patrol and ORR updated their data systems to allow them to indicate whether a child was separated. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which these changes, if fully implemented, will consistently indicate when children have been separated from their parents, or will help reunify families, if appropriate." What GAO Found summary.
Read the Testimony.

Federal District Court Rules Against Commerce Department Decision to Include a Citizenship Question in the 2020 Census
January 15, 2019. Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling in New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce, against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Concluding his 277 page findings of fact and conclusions of law, Furman wrote: "There is no dispute that the Constitution, the Census Act, and the APA allow the Secretary of Commerce broad discretion over the design and administration of the decennial census. . . . Generally speaking, they do not preclude the Secretary from charting a new policy direction, even over the strenuous objections of career staff, or from recruiting other government officials to support such a change. Significantly, however, the discretion that they allow the Secretary is not unlimited. He must comply with the policy decisions that Congress-to which the Constitution gives authority over the census-has made and enshrined in statute, including but not limited to the preference for obtaining data through administrative records rather than through direct inquiries. He must follow the procedures mandated by law. And more broadly, the exercise of his statutory authority must 'be reasonable and reasonably explained.' Mfrs. Ry. Co., 676 F.3d at 1096. Measured against these standards,Secretary Ross's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census-even if it did not violate the Constitution itself-was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside. To conclude otherwise and let Secretary Ross's decision stand would undermine the proposition-central to the rule of law-that ours is a 'government of laws, and not of men.' John Adams, Novanglus Papers, No. 7 (1775). And it would do so with respect to what Congress itself has described as 'one of the most critical constitutional functions our Federal Government performs.' 1998 Appropriations Act, § 209(a)(5), 111 Stat. at 2480-81. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated at length above, the Court vacates Secretary Ross's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, enjoins Defendants from implementing Secretary Ross's March, 26, 2018 decision or from adding a question to the 2020 census questionnaire without curing the legal defects identified in this Opinion, and remands the matter to the Secretary of Commerce (to the extent that such a 'remand' is even necessary) for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's Order." Id. at 276-277.
Read the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Read the Complaint in the Challenge to the Commerce Department Policy.

U.S. District Court Rejects Trump Administration's Narrowing of Asylum Credible Fear Determination
December 20, 2018. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has issued an injunction against a set of actions taken by then Attorney General Sessions determined to issue his own ruling in an asylum case known as In the Matter of A-B- in which he narrowed the criteria that an asylum seeker could use in a bid for refugee status and asylum in the U.S. His decision followed a speech he made in the fall of 2017 in which he had signaled an intention to change asylum policy (see the post of August 10, 2018 below. Sessions actions were followed by changes in Department of Homeland Security policy to implement the Sessions decision. Judge Sullivan found the policies arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
   Read Jude Sullivan's Memorandum Opinion.
   Read the Complaint in the Case.
   Read Attorney General Sessions' Decision in the earlier Matter of A-B- Case.
   Read Attorney General's October 12, 2017 Speech.

Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order on Trump Limits on Asylum Process
November 20, 2018. U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar has granted a temporary restraining order against President Trump's Proclamation 9822 which limited asylum seekers to designated ports of entry from Mexico into the United States. In so doing, Judge Tigar wrote: "The Immigration and Naturalization Act ('INA') 'deals with one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation's history: welcoming homeless refugees to our shores,' and it 'give[s] statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.' 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 (Sept. 6, 1979). As part of that commitment, Congress has clearly commanded in the INA that any alien who arrives in the United States, irrespective of that alien's status, may apply for asylum-'whether or not at a designated port of arrival.' 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Notwithstanding this clear command, the President has issued a proclamation, and the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security have promulgated a rule, that allow asylum to be granted only to those who cross at a designated port of entry and deny asylum to those who enter at any other location along the southern border of the United States. Plaintiff legal and social service organizations, Plaintiffs East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and Central American Resource Center of Los Angeles (collectively, the 'Immigration Organizations'), now ask the Court to stop the rule from going into effect. ECF No. 8. The Court will grant the motion." East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, Order, at 1. (For more details on the proclamation and the suit see the posting for November 15 below.)
Read the Order.

Presidential Actions Place Limits on Asylum Process Sparking Legal Challenges
November 15, 2018. President Trump, in a widely publicized action on November 9, issued Proclamation 9822 entitled "Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States" which limited asylum seekers to designated ports of entry from Mexico into the United States." On that same day, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security; the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Department of Justice issued an interim final rule entitled "Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims." As the administration indicates "[t]he purpose of this rule is to limit aliens' eligibility for asylum if they enter in contravention of a proclamation suspending or restricting their entry along the southern border."
   The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights immediately filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case styled East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump which alleges that the administration's actions violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and asks for a temporary restraining order. The case is scheduled for hearing before Judge Jon S. Tigar on Monday morning, November 19.
   Read the Proclamation.
   Read Interim Final Rule.
   Read the Complaint in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump.
   Read the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump.
   Read the Justice Department's Brief in Opposition to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump.

9th Circuit Upholds Ruling Against Trump Administration Attempt to Stop DACA Program
November 8, 2018. A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld a district court ruling that blocked the Trump administration's attempt to eliminate the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. In so doing, the court said: "The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose “province and duty” it is “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). The government’s decision to rescind DACA is subject to judicial review. And, upon review, we conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission of DACA—at least as justified on this record—is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief." Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Opinion at 22. Given its previous attempt to have the Supreme Court hear the case, it is highly likely that the administration will appeal promptly.
   The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration's request for the Court to take up the DACA case, DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 17-1003, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has completed its review. The grant of certiorari before judgment is rare, but does happen in some cases. In its order, the Court said: "The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied without prejudice. It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case."
   Read the Ninth Circuit Opinion.
   Read the District Court Order in the Case.
   Read the Order List with the Denial of Cert. before Judgment.

Supreme Court Stays Judge Furman's Order that Commerce Secretary Sit for Deposition
October 23, 2018. The Supreme Court has issued a stay U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman's order that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must sit for a deposition in the cases brought against his decision directing that the Census include a question on citizenship in the next Census. It is a stay pending an appeal of the matter to the Court for full consideration.
For more information and the relevant documents other than the Supreme Court opinion, see the post for September 22 below.
Read the ruling and the concurring opinion.

Homeland Security Inspector General Issues Critical Report on Family Separation Policy Mandate and Its Implementation
October 3, 2018. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General has issued a report entitled Special Report – Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy critical of the implementation of the Zero Tolerance policy largely because DHS was unprepared for the policy and not able under the circumstances to respond to it adequately which resulted in a variety of serious problems.
Read the DHS OIG Report.

Federal Judge Orders Commerce Secretary to be Deposed in Case Challening Inclusion of Citizenship Question in Upcoming Census
September 22, 2018. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman has ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must sit for a deposition in the cases brought against his decision directing that the Census include a question on citizenship in the next Census. There are two cases involving multiple parties which allege that the Secretary's action is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and discrimnatory in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This follows a ruling in July in which furman refused to dismissed the suit. This case concerns two different suits consolidated in the Southern District of New York at the present time.
   Read Judge Furman's Opinion and Order of September 21 on the Deposition of Secretary Ross.
   Read Judge Furman's Opinion and Order of July 26 Allowing the APA and Due Process Challenges to Ross' Decision on the Citizenship Question to Proceed.
   Read the Memorandum from the Secretary of Commerce Directing the Question.
   Read Commerce Department Press Release Accompanying the Policy Decision.
   Read the DOJ letter Requesting the Change as Posted by Politico.com.
   Read the February letter from the State AGs to the Secretary of Commerce.
   Read the Complaint in the Challenge to the Commerce Department Policy.

Settlement Reached in Case Challening Trump Administration Asylum Actions
September 13, 2018. The Legal Aid Justice Center and the Muslim Advocates have announced a settlement with the Justice Department in three consolidated cases, Dora v. Sessions, Ms. L. v. ICE, and M.M.M. v. Sessions, that challenged the Trump administration's asylum procedures under their zero-tolerance and family-separation policies. The parties have reached agreement and the matter is now before the court for approval and entry as an order on consent. As the plaintiffs explain, "the government has agreed that all parents still in the United States who underwent the asylum interview process after being forcibly separated from their children and subsequently had their claim rejected will now have a second chance to have their asylum request reviewed, including the opportunity to submit additional evidence and testimony." Legal Aid Justice Center Press Release
   Read the Agreement.
   Read the Complaint in the Dora v. Sessions case.
   Read the Legal Aid Justice Center Press Release on the Settlement.
   Read the Muslim Advocates Press Release on the Settlement.
   Read the Complaint in the Ms. L. v. ICE case.
   Read the Complaint in M.M.M. v. Sessions.

Judge Orders A Deportation Flight Turned Around and Backs it With a Threat of Contempt Action Against the Attorney General
August 10, 2018. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia learned during an emergency hearing concerning the removal of a women seeking asylum that, despite the government's promise not to deport her until after the court hearing on her case, she was on a plane out of the country even as the court hearing was in progress. The judge ordered the plane be turned around and backed that with a threat to hold all of the key officials involved in contempt of court. He followed up with an order that concluded: "HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants shall return“Carmen” and her daughter to the United States FORTHWITH; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the Defendants do not fully comply with this Order, Defendants Attorney General Jefferson Sessions, III; Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Lee Francis Cissna; and Executive Office of Immigration Review Director James McHenry, preferably accompanied by their attorneys, shall be ORDERED to appear in Court to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants shall file a status report on the docket in this case by no later than 5:00 pm August 10, 2018, informing the Court of the Defendants’ compliance with this Order." Grace v. Sessions, Order at 3.
   The proceedings were part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a number of asylum claimants earlier in the week, seeking to overturn a change in asylum policy made by Attorney General Sessions. In particular, it follows on an action taken by the Attorney General in which Sessions intervened in a pending case and in issuing his decision in the matter narrowed the criteria that an asylum seeker could use in a bid for refugee status and asylum in the U.S. The Attorney General used his decision in the Matter of A-B- to announce the change in policy followed a speech he made in the fall of 2017 in which he had signaled an intention to change asylum policy.
   Read the Order in the Case.
   Read the Complaint in the Case.
   Read Attorney General Sessions' Decision in the earlier Matter of A-B- Case.
   Read Attorney General's October 12, 2017 Speech.

Another Court Rules Against Trump Administration Recission of the DACA Program
August 3, 2018. Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a ruling concluding the the recission of DACA was arbitrary and capricous in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. This decision follows and April 24 opinion in which Bates found the violation of the APA but allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security ninety days in which to issue a new recission memorandum with adequate explanation. The judge will continue a stay of his order for twenty days to permit the government to decide whether to take an appeal and seek a stay pending that appeal.
Read the August 3 Opinion.
Read the April 24, 2018 Opinion.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Ruling Against Trump Administration on Sanctuary Cities
August 2, 2018. In announcing its ruling in the San Francisco santuary cities case against the Trump administration a panel of the Ninth Circuit wrote: "We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization. Because Congress has not acted, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara (collectively, the “Counties”). However, given the absence of specific findings underlying the nationwide application of the injunction, we vacate the nationwide injunction and remand for reconsideration and further findings." City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, at 3.
Read opinion.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction Against DHS Treatment of Asylum Seekers
July 3, 2018. Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a prelimnary injunction against the Secretary of Homeland Security finding that DHS is in violation of its own policies about the treatment of asylum seekers. He concluded: "To be clear, in finding that injunctive relief is warranted in this case, this Court is simply ordering that Defendants do what they already admit is required – follow the ICE Directive when adjudicating asylum-seekers’ detention. The Directive provides a framework of minimum protections for those claiming refugee status, and, as Defendants acknowledge, it is binding on the Government. To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores–is no great judicial leap. Rather, the issuance of injunctive relief in this case serves only to hold Defendants accountable to their own governing policies and to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the protections they are due under the Parole Directive." Damus v. Nielsen, Memorandum Opinion, at 38.
Read opinion.

Federal Court Mandates Deadline for Reunifying Families Separated from the their Families at the Border
June 27, 2018. Judge Dana M. Sabaraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction mandating that the Trump administration reunify families that were separated at the border within specified deadlines and in no case later than 30 dates.
Read opinion.

Federal Court Rules Against Attorney General and in Favor of Philadelphia in Sanctuary Cities Case
June 7, 2018. Agreeing in many respects with a previous ruling in a case in Chicago, a federal district court in Philadelphia has ruled against Attorney General Sessions' effort to impose immigration cooperation conditions on federal Justice Assistance Grants and to "claw back" funds already provided to the city, on grounds that the AG's actions exceeded his statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, violated the separation of powers as an intrusion on the taxing and spending powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution, and commandeering state and local officials to enforce federal policy in light of the Tenth Amendment.
Read opinion.

Supreme Court Releases Oral Argument Audio and Transcript in Trump Travel Ban Case
April 25, 2018. The Supreme Court today heard oral argument in the Trump v. Hawaii case concerning the president's travel ban. In an unusual move, the Court released the audio of the oral argument almost immediately following the argument.
Read the Oral Argument Transcript.
Listen to the Audio of the Oral Argument.

Supreme Court Strikes Key Language that Allows Deportations in Immigration Act
April 17, 2018. Justice Kagan wrote for a five to four majority in Sessions v. Dimaya, finding a key provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) unconstitutionally vague. The act allows deportation of an alience found to have committed an “aggravated felony”after entering the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The definition of aggravated felony includes a "crime of violence." Justice Kagan concludes: "Three Terms ago, in Johnson v. United States, this Court held that part of a federal law’s definition of “violent felony” was impermissibly vague. See 576 U. S. ___ (2015). The question in this case is whether a similarly worded clause in a statute’s definition of “crime of violence” suffers from the same constitutional defect. Adhering to our analysis in Johnson, we hold that it does." Slip op. at 1.
Read the Opinion.

U.S. District Court Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Attorney General Immigration Cooperation Mandate on Local Jurisdictions Seeking Federal Law Enforcement Grant Funds
April 12, 2018. U.S. District Judge Manuel Real issued a nationwide permanent injunction in a case brought by the City of Los Angeles against Attorney General Sessions regarding federal government denial of funding to the city under the COPS Hiring Program (CHP grant) for failure to guarantee cooperation with federal immigration enforcement policy. Real found that the attorney general's mandates were beyond the authority granted by Congress (ultra vires), violated the spending powers under Article I of the Constitution, and were arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Read the Opinion.

Commerce Secretary Announces Census Will Ask About Citizenship and California AG Sues
March 27, 2018. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has issued a memorandum directing that the Census include a question on citizenship and the California quickly filed suit, seeking a preliminary injunction against the policy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In February, the attorneys general of 19 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to the secretary of commerce asking that the question not be included and warning that in their view it would be illegal. The commerce department action follows a request from the justice department made in a letter of December 2017.
   Read the Memorandum from the Secretary of Commerce Directing the Question.
   Read Commerce Department Press Release Accompanying the Policy Decision.
   Read the DOJ letter Requesting the Change as Posted by Politico.com.
   Read the February letter from the State AGs to the Secretary of Commerce.
   Read the Complaint in the Challenge to the Commerce Department Policy.

Attorney General Gives Speech to California Law Enforcement Officers on Suit Against the State's Santuary Policies
March 7, 2018. Attorney General Sessions today delivered an address to the California Peace Officers' Association conference, sharply attacking the state's officials and their support for sanctuary policies and explaining his decision to bring suit against the state, its governor, and attorney general (see post below about the suit).
Read Attorney General Session's Speech.

U.S. Department of Justice Files Suit Against California as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction
March 7, 2018. The Department of Justice has filed suit against the state of California, its governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and its attorney general, Xavier Becerra, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against these officials and asking the court to declare several state statutes implementing the states sanctuary policies void as violative of Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution and preempted by federal law. On January 25, shortly after taking of fice, President Trump issued Executive Order 13768 entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (January 30, 2017). A month later, Attorney General Sessions issued "Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions," stating in part his warning that the DOJ would go after sanctuary jurisdictions and adding that: "The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw-back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates Section 1373." Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions Washington, DC https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-sanctuary-jurisdictions .
   Read the Complaint.
   Read EO 13768.
   Read the Attorney General's March 2017 Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions.

Supreme Court Refuses to Take the DACA Case before Judgment in the Ninth Circuit
February 26, 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration's request for the Court to take up the DACA case, DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 17-1003, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has completed its review. The grant of certiorari before judgment is rare, but does happen in some cases. In its order, the Court said: "The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied without prejudice. It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case."
   Read the Order List with the Denial of Cert. before Judgment.
   Read the Federal Government's Petition for Certiorari before Judgment.
   Read the Solicitor General's Letter of February 14, 2018 to the Supreme Court on the petition.
   Read the Cal. Regents Brief in Opposition to the Federal Government Petition.
   Read the Napolitano Brief in Opposition to the Federal Government Petition.
   Read the district court order now pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Fourth Circuit Joins Ninth in Ruling Against Most Recent Trump Administration Travel Ban
February 18, 2018. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has now joined the Ninth Circuit in ruling against the most recent version of the Trump administration's travel ban issued in Proclamation 9645 issued in September. In an en banc ruling with a variety of concurring and dissenting opinions taking the full document over 285 pages, the court affirmed the district court's ruling issuing an injunction on grounds that they plaintiffs will likely prevail on their establishment of religion claim under the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit ruling consolidates three separate suits brought by a number of groups and individuals that raise common claims related concerning, as the court notes, "the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Free Speech and Free Association Clauses of the First Amendment, the equal protection and procedural due process components of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Refugee Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)." International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, Slip Op., at 23. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case (see the entry for January 20 below) and therefore the Fourth Circuit stayed its ruling pending that Court's decision in the case.
   Read the opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.
   Read the 9th Circuit Ruling of December 22, 2017.
   Read the Travel Ban as Set Forth in Presidential Proclamation 9645.

Supreme Court to Hear Travel Ban Version 3
January 20, 2018. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal of the ruling against the third version of President Trump's travel ban published as Proclamation 9645. The Court granted cert. on the three questions posed in the Solicitor General's petition, but added an issue presented by Hawaii. The petition stated: "The questions presented are: 1. Whether respondents’ challenge to the President’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable. 2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad. 3. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly overbroad." Hawaii's additional issue identified by the Court is "3. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause." The Court did not mention issue 2 of Hawaii's brief which is "2. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 'discriminate[s] *** because of *** nationality' in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)."
   Read the Supreme Court's Order Granting Certiorari.
   Read the Trump Administration's Petition for Certioari.
   Read Hawaii's Brief in Opposition to the Petition for Certioari.
   Read the 9th Circuit Ruling of December 22, 2017 that is the subject of the review.
   Read the Travel Ban as Set Forth in Presidential Proclamation 9645.

Attorney General Announces Intent to Take District Court Ruling Direct to the Supreme Court
January 16, 2018. (Updated January 20, 2018) The Department of Justice announced today that it is filing a notice of appeal of Judge William Alsup's injunction against the decision to terminate the DACA program in the 9th Circuit, but the news release also indicated that: "The Department also intends later this week to take the rare step of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, seeking direct review in the Supreme Court. See the posting for January 11 below for more information on Judge Alsup's ruling.
Read the Justice Department Announcement.
Read the Justice Department Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment.

District Court Blocks Trump Administration Termination of DACA
January 11, 2018. Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued ordered that the Department of Homeland Security not take action to rescind the DACA program until the litigation is concluded. The process for terminating th eprogram was to begin in March. The action came in REgents of the University of Calfornia v. Department of Homeland Security, a case brought by the university and its president Janey Napolitano (who as Secretary of Homeland Security initated the DACA program during the Obama administration). The judge concluded: "For the foregoing reasons, defendants ARE HEREBY ORDERED AND ENJOINED, pending final judgment herein or other order, to maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis on the same terms and conditions as were in effect before the rescission on September 5, 2017, including allowing DACA enrollees to renew their enrollments, with the exceptions (1) that new applications from applicants who have never before received deferred action need not be processed; (2) that the advance parole feature need not be continued for the time being for anyone; and (3) that defendants may take administrative steps to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individualized basis for each renewal application. Order at 46.
Read the court's order

Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban 3 to Take Effect Pending Appellate Court Action
December 5, 2017. The U.S. Supreme Court issued orders yesterday in the cases challenging the Trump administration's third edition of its travel ban, allowing implementation of the order pending the completion of proceedings in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits concerning the policy. The stay applies to orders issued by district courts in Hawaii and Maryland and will stay in place until that appeal ends, but it will continue if the Supreme Court then agrees to hear the case and will remain in place until that court rules in the matter. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg would have denied the stay.
Read the Court's order in the Hawaii case.
Read the Court's order in the Maryland case.

Homeland Security Inspector General Informs Congress as to Travel Ban Implementation Problems
November 21, 2017. The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security has sent a letter to Senators Richard Durbin (D.Ill.), Tammy Duckworth (D.Ill.), and Claire McCaskill (D.Mo.), two of whom are ranking members of subcommittees of the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, concerning their request for an investigation of the implementation of EO 13769, the travel ban, imposed early in the Trump administration. Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth indicated that the report had been provided to DHS on October 6, but has not been cleared for release as yet. The letter explains that the IG is not clear as to the precise reasons for the delay, but noted that his office has been informed that the agency may invoke the "deliberative process privilege" for some of the material. However, the letter sets forth a series of findings from the investigation, including the finding that the fact that Customs and Border Patrol leaders and field personnel "had virtually no warning" and were "caught by surprise" resulted in a series of problems.
Read the IG letter.

Suit Filed Seeking Release of 10 Year Old Girl with a Disability Detained by ICE
October 19, 2017. The ACLU has filed suit in the case of R.M.H. v. Lloyd in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas seeking the release of a 10 year old girl with Cerebral Palsy who was taken into custody by ICE officers on the way to the hospital in Corpus Cristy for emergency surgery. The officials escorted her to the hospital and took here into custody after the surgery, placing her in a HHS contracted jurvenile facility. The ACLU has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking her immediate release into the custody of family members. The complaint in the case alleges "Violation of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008; Violation of Flores Consent Decree; Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Violation of Immigration and Nationality Act; Violation of Rehabilitation Act."
   Read the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
   Read the Complaint in R.M.H. v. Lloyd.
   Read the ACLU of Texas Press Release on the Case.

D.C. Circuit En Banc Supports Direct Court Mandate Immigration Detainee's Abortion Rights Claim
October 21, 2017. Writing for the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc, Chief Judge Garland has vacated the previous circuit court panel order and restored the district court injunction. However, since the dates in that order have passed, the D.C. Circuit sent the case back to the district court with the following mandate: "The case is hereby remanded to the district court for further proceedings to amend the effective dates in paragraph 1 of its injunction. The dates in paragraph 1 have now passed, and the parties have proffered new evidence and factual assertions concerning the expected duration of custody and other matters. The district court is best suited to promptly determine in the first instance the appropriate dates for compliance with the injunction. In so doing, the district court retains full discretion to conduct proceedings and make any factual findings deemed necessary and appropriate to the district court’s exercise of its equitable judgment, consistent with this order, including with regard to any of the factual disputes that were raised for the first time on appeal." Garza v. Hargan, Order, at 2. One judge issued a concurring opinion and three judges dissented.
Read the D.C. Circuit En Ban Ruling.

Immigration Detainee's Effort to Obtain Abortion in Court
October 21, 2017. In a rapid process, the D.C. Circuit has heard an appeal from a district court ruling that a young woman in immigration detention has a right to obtain an abortion and that the federal government Office of Refugee Resettlement policy against that option could not stand. The D.C. Circuit panel has issued an order that vacates part of the district court decision, but simultaneously calling for the parties to identify a sponsor for her by October 31 and then to allow her to obtain the procedure. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had issued a temporary restraining order which called upon the government to immediately transport her to a facility to obtain the abortion procedure on October 20 or 21.
Read the D.C. Circuit Order.
Read the District Court Temporary Restraining Order.

Federal District Judge in Maryland Adds Another Ruling Against the President's Travel Ban
October 18, 2017. Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has also ruled against the current version of President Trump's travel ban in Proclamation 9645, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats." That travel ban excludes indefinitely people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Chuang found in part that "The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Proclamation violates the non-discrimination provision of § 1152(a) to the extent that it bars entry by immigrants on the basis of nationality." Memorandum Opinion, at 48. He also found that: "The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim." Id., at 83-84.
Read the Memorandum Opinion.
Read Proclamation 9645.

Federal District Judge in Hawaii Enjoins Third Trump Travel Ban
October 17, 2017. U.S. District Court Judge Watson in Hawaii has issued an injunction against the third Trump travel ban.
Read the Hawaii Attorney General's Press Release with the Court's Order Attached.

Federal District Court Issues Injunction in Chicago Sanctuary Cities Case
September 15, 2017. Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has issued an injunction against two of the three contested provisions added by the Justice Department to local governments applying for the Byrne JAG grant for their law enforcement officers (see August 7 posting on this webpage), but refusing to enjoin the requirements that cities certify their compliance with a federal statute prohibiting interference with information release to federal authorities on immigration. Judge Leinenweber explained: "The two new conditions require, first, that local authorities provide federal agents advance notice of the scheduled release from state or local correctional facilities of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations, and, second, that local authorities provide immigration agents with access to City detention facilities and individuals detained therein. Additionally, a condition on Byrne JAG funds was added last year that requires the City to certify compliance with a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits local government and law enforcement officials from restricting the sharing of information with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) regarding the citizenship status of any individual." Chicago v. Sessions, Memorandum Opinion and Order, at 3-4. The judge concluded: "For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the City a preliminary injunction against the Attorney General’s imposition of the notice and access conditions on the Byrne JAG grant. The City has established a likelihood of success on the merits as to these two conditions and irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue, and the other two preliminary injunction factors do not sway the analysis. This injunction against imposition of the notice and access conditions is nationwide in scope, there being no reason to think that the legal issues present in this case are restricted to Chicago or that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General would differ in another jurisdiction. See, Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554, 605 (4th Cir. 2017). The Court denies the City’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with respect to the compliance condition, because the City has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Read the Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Read the Press Release by the Mayor of Chicago on the Injunction.

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court on Limits on the Trump Administration's Travel Ban
September 8, 2017. The latest opinion in the ongoing litigation concerning the Trump administration travel ban is an opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit affirming the ruling of the Federal District Court on limits to the Trump administration travel ban. The Ninth Circuit per curiam ruling explained: "In sum, the district court did not err in rejecting the Government’s restricted reading of the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017 stay ruling and in modifying the injunction to prohibit enforcement of the Executive Order against grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States." Hawaii v. Trump, slip op. at 22. The Ninth Circuit also found: "Applying this standard, the district court held that formally assured refugees have bona fide relationships with resettlement agencies and are covered by the injunction because the assurance is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course rather than to evade the Executive Order. Mindful of the narrow standard that governs our review, we affirm, considering the individualized screening process necessary to obtain a formal assurance and the concrete harms faced by a resettlement agency because of that refugee’s exclusion." Id. at 24. The circuit court concluded: "We affirm the district court’s order modifying the preliminary injunction. The mandate shall issue five days after the filing of this opinion."
    The Federal District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii ruled in July that the Trump administration's response to the Supreme Court partial stay of the injunction against the Trump travel ban was too narrow and not consistent with the Supreme Court ruling (see posting for July 14 below). The administration sought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court (see posting for July 17 below), but, as the Ninth Circuit explained," On July 19, 2017, the Supreme Court summarily denied the motion for clarification but stayed in part the district court’s modified injunction “with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance,” pending resolution of the Government’s appeal before us." Id. at 10.
   Read the Ninth Circuit Opinion.
   Read the District Court July Ruling.

EU Court of Justice Rejects Challenges by Hungary and Slovakia to Refugee Rules
September 6, 2017. The European Court of Justice has rejected a challenge by Hungary and Slovakia to an emergency decision to require EU countries to assist Greece and Italy overwhelmed by the refugee crisis. As the court explained it in its press release: "In response to the migration crisis that affected Europe in the summer of 2015, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision 1 in order to help Italy and Greece deal with the massive inflow of migrants. The decision provides for the relocation from those two Member States to other EU Member States, over a period of two years, of 120 000 persons in clear need of international protection. The contested decision was adopted on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU, which provides that ‘in the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.’" Hungary and Slovakia opposed the action initially and filed suit to against it, supported by Poland. Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Sweden and the EU Commission opposed the suit. The Court dismissed the suit. Again, in its press release, the Court explained: "The Court holds in that connection that Article 78(3) TFEU enables the EU institutions to adopt all the provisional measures necessary to respond effectively and swiftly to an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of displaced persons. Those measures may also derogate from legislative acts, provided, in particular, that their material and temporal scope is circumscribed and that they have neither the object nor the effect of replacing or permanently amending legislative acts. Those conditions are met in the present case." 1-2.
   Read the "provisional text" of the Judgment of the Court.
   Read the July 26, 2017 Opinion of the Advocate General.
   Read the EU Court Press Release on the Case.

Chicago Mayor Announces Intent to Sue Challening DOJ Rules on Grants and So-call Sanctuary Cities
August 7, 2017. The mayor of Chicago has announced: "Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel and Chicago Police Department (CPD) Superintendent Eddie Johnson announced that on Monday the City of Chicago will file a federal lawsuit to prevent President Donald Trump's Justice Department from making a federal crime prevention grant that is critical to public safety efforts conditional on unrelated and unlawful immigration enforcement actions." Specifically, the city is challenging requirements for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program that are tied to a commitment regarding immigration matters.
   Read the Press Release by the Mayor of Chicago on the Suit.
   Read the complaint.
   Read the Complaint Exhibit A.
   Read the Complaint Exhibit B..
   Read the Complaint Exhibit C.
   Read the Complaint Exhibit D.
   Read the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program FY 2017 Local Solicitation.

Justice Department Takes Emergency Appeal to Supreme Court on Latest Travel Ban Ruling in Hawaii
July 17, 2017. One day after Judge Watson issued his ruling against the policy applied by the federal government after the Supreme Court accepted the travel ban case for review and issued a partial stay in the injunction in the case, the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal seeking to have the Supreme Court overturn Watson's July 13 ruling on the injunction noted in the July 14 posting below. The Justice Department has chosen to go directly to the Supreme Court with this action as opposed to seeking a ruling from the 9th Circuit. Attorney General Sessions issued a press release on the action.
Read the DOJ Filing.
Read the Attorney General Press Release on the Action.

Federal District Court Rules Travel Ban Injunction Covers More People than Administration Claimed
July 14, 2017. Federal District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii has ruled that the Trump administration's response to the Supreme Court partial stay of the injunction against the Trump travel ban is too narrow and not consistent with the Supreme Court ruling. Watson ordered that: "Defendants JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; REX W. TILLERSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them are enjoined fully from the following: "1. Applying section 2(c), 6(a) and 6(b) of Executive Order 13,780 to exclude grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States. 2. Applying Section 6(a) and 6(b) of Executive Order 13,780 to exclude refugees who: (i) have a formal assurance from an agency within the United States that the agency will provide, or ensure the provision of, reception and placement services to that refugee; or (ii) are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program through the Lautenberg Program." Hawaii v. Trump, Order, 07/13/2017, at 25-26.
Read the Opinion.

Hawaii Attorney General Seeks Clarification on the Scope of the Travel Ban Under Supreme Court Partial Stay
June 30, 2017. The Attorney General of Hawaii has filed an emergency motion that seeks a clarification of the scope of those protected by the injunction against the Trump travel ban following the partial stay issued earlier in the week by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of State began shortly before implementing the modified ban to explain who would be permitted to enter the U.S. and who would not. The Attorney General's motion states in part: "Plaintiffs request that the Court clarify: (1) that the injunction bars the Government from enforcing the Executive Order against fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; (2) that refugees with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States are covered by the injunction; and (3) that the Government may not apply a presumption that aliens lack a 'bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.'" Hawaii v. Trump, U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Emergency Motion to Clarify Scope of Preliminary Injunction, June 29, 2017, at 3-4. The Attorney General has posted a press release together with his emergency motion and a memorandum of law in support of that motion.
   This legal action followed the issuance by the State Department of a memorandum entitled "Implementing Excutive Order 13780 Following Supreme Court Ruling--Guidance to Visa-Adjudicating Posts" sent to "All Diplomatic and Consular Posts" on Thursday June 29 just hours before the ban was scheduled to go into effect. Reuters published an article by Arshad Mohammed and Yeganeh Torbati entitled "U.S. Lays Out Criteria for Visa Applicants from Six Muslim Nations" and an accompanying piece which set forth the terms of the guidance.
   Read the Press Release, Emergency Motion, and Memorandum in Support of the Motion.
   Read the Reuters Article on the Guidance.
   Access the transcript of the State Department Telephone Briefing on Implementation of E.O. 13780, June 29, 2017.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump Travel Ban and Allows Some of it to Go Into Effect
June 26, 2017. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the administration's appeal of injunctions issued by the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit appeals courts and pending that appeal has allowed the revised travel ban to go into effect with the exceptions that: "Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claima bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to allother individuals, the provisions may take effect." Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, Slip op. at 13. Justice Thomas wrote a dissent, arguing that the injunctions should be stayed in their entirety and that dissent was joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch.
Read the opinion.

Ninth Circuit Also Rules Against the Trump Revised Travel Ban
June 12, 2017. Less than a month after the 4th Circuit issued its ruling against it, a panel of the 9th Circuit has ruled against President Trump's revised travel ban executive order. In an 86 page per curiam opinion, the panel observed: "The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives the President broad powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to protect the American public. But immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show. The President’s authority is subject to certain statutory and constitutional restraints." Hawaii v. Trump, Slip op. at 2. The panel said: "We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress. In suspending the entry of more than 180 million nationals from six countries, suspending the entry of all refugees, and reducing the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year, the President did not meet the essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority: The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' Further, the Order runs afoul of other provisions of the INA that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and require the President to follow a specific process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees. On these statutory bases, we affirm in large part the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order." Id., at 2-3.
Read the opinion.

Justice Department Seeks Supreme Court Review of Travel Ban Ruling
June 2, 2017. The Trump Administration's Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit ruling affirming the injunction agains the president's travel ban. It has also asked the Court to stay the injunction pending review.
Read the Petition for Certiorari and Appendix.

Fourth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Trump Administration's Revised Travel Ban Excecutive Order
May 25, 2017. The Fourth Circuit sitting en banc has issued an opinion upholding the Maryland district court junction against the revised Trump Administration travel ban on grounds that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the claim of a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. The court began its opinion as follows: "The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles—that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court’s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order." International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, at 12.
Read the Opinion.

Santa Clara County and San Francisco Win Preliminary Injunction in Sanctuary Cities Case
April 26, 2017. Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a preliinary injunction against part of President Trump's Executive Order 13768 entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) which, among other things, seeks to block federal funding to what the order termed "sanctuary jurisdictions." The court specifically enjoined enforcement of Section 9(a) of the executive order.
    The links below for the Santa Clara and Richmond complaints are to .zip files that contain both the complaint and supporting exhibits.
   Read hte Order Granting the Preliminary Injunection.
   Read the Complaint by San Francisco.
   Read the COmplaint by Santa Clara County.
   Read the City of Richmond Complaint.
   Read Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States"

City of Seattle Sues President Trump to Block Threats to Sanctuary Cities
March 31, 2017. The mayor of Seattle has announced that the city has filed suit challenging President Trump's Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017), and specifically the so-called sanctuary cities provision that seeks to remove federal funding from jurisdictions the administration decides do not actively support the administration's immigration enforcement policies. Relying primarily on two Supreme Court rulings from the 1990s, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the city argues that the order violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The city also argues that the order exceeds the taxing and spending power of Congress. The complaint cites the Affordable Care Act (ACA) case, National Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), and asserts that the order creates an unconstitutional coercion of state and local governments under threat of a loss of funding, a position the Court employed in the ACA case to reject the requirement that states implement the Medicaid extension under the ACA or lose all Medicaid funding. The Seattle case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
    The City and County of San Francisco had filed a similar suit against the order in February in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
   Read the Complaint in Seattle v. Trump.
   Read the Seattle Mayor's Press Release on suit.
   Read the Complaint in the San Francisco Case.
   Read Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States"

District Judge in Hawaii Refuses Administration Request to Remove Order Against the Revised Policy Travel Ban and Entry for Immigrants and Refugees
March 30, 2017. U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson of the District of Hawaii has granted the motion by the plaintiffs in Hawaii v. Trump to convert the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction and rejected administration arguments to remove the court barrier to implementarion of the revised executive order on immigrants and refugees. In his ruling, Justice Watson concluded: "Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is Granted." State of Hawaii v. Trump, Civ. No. 17-00050 DKW-KSC; Order, 1-2.
   The attorney general of Hawaii, joined by the former solicitor general of the U.S., filed a challenge to the revised executive order and the TRO was granted on March 15.
   Read the March 29, 2017 Order.
   Read the Order Granting Motion for TRO on March 15, 2017.
   Read the Amended Complaint.
   Read the Presidential Executive Order of March 6, 2017 on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
   Read the Presidential Memorandum on Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits.

Federal District Court in Colorado Certifies Class Action in Suit Brought by ICE Detainees Against Contractor
March 10, 2017. Detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a Colorado detention facility operated under contract by GEO Group have brought a class action suit against the contractor on several grounds related to forced labor that was allegedly either uncompensated or paid at one dollar per day. That case has now been certified by Judge John Kane of the U.S. District Court for Colorado and will proceed.
Read the Order Certifying the Class Action Suit.
Read the Complaint in the Case.

Washington Attorney General Calls for Injunction Against Trump Immigrants and Refugees Order
March 10, 2017. Washington State's Attorney General Robert Ferguson has filed a response to the notice that the Trump administration had withdrawn its previous executive order on immigrants and refugees and replaced it with new directives issued this week by maintaining that the action is still unconstitutional and the case should move forward despite the changes. The response begins: "When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies, the defendant cannot evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form. Courts do not issue injunctive relief in a game of whack-a-mole, forced to start anew at a defendant’s whim."
   Minnesota is also a party in that challenge to the executive order. Additionally, the state of Oregon has just had its February 23 motion to intervene in the case granted.
   Read the state reponse to the new executive orders.
   Read Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum's statement on joined the case.

Hawaii Launches Legal Challenge to New Trump Policy on Immigrants and Refugees
March 8, 2017. The attorney general of Hawaii, joined by the former solicitor general of the U.S., has filed a challenge to the new executive order announced this week by President Trump. The case alleges constitutional, statutory, and procedural violations of law.
   Read the Amended Complaint.
   Read the Presidential Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
   Read the Presidential Memorandum on Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits.

Trump Administration DHS Issues Implementation Directives on Executive Order on Border Security and Interior Enforcement EOs
February 21, 2017. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly has released two memoranda that provide instructions for DHS officials to implement the Trump executive orders of January 25, 2017 entitled "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" and "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States." The first DHS memorandum is entitled "Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies" and the second is "Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest."
   Read Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies.
   Read Enforcemen of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest.
   Read the DHS Press Release.
   Read E.O. Executive Order 13767 Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.
   Read Executive Order 13768 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Trump Administration Appeal in Immigrants and Refugees Executive Order Case
February 9, 2017. The 9th Circuit has issued its ruling rejecting the Trump administration's appeal of the district court temporary restraining order against the travel ban imposed by Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Recognizing the early stage of the litigation, the three judge panel wrote: "Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay." Washington v. Trump, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00141 (2017), Order, at 3.
   After rejecting the administration's contention that Washington lacked standing to sue, the judges reached the argument that the order is unreviewable. "The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has 'unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.' The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. . . . Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one. There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. . . . Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the '[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.'” [citations]. . . We are called upon to perform that duty in this case. . . . Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context." Id., at 13-14.
    The court explained the standard for review of the district court order. "Our decision is guided by four questions: '(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.'” The court concluded: "The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’ Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view as to any of the States’ other claims." Id., at 18-19.
   The court acknowledged the allegation regarding religious discrimination and supported the use by the states of evidence of intent from the statements of the president, but in the end decided that it would not make a final determination on this issue at this point in the litigation. "The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban' as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. . . . [citations] The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed." Id., at 25-26.
   Read the opinion.

Litigation Launched to Challenge Trump Executive Order on Regulation
February 8, 2017. Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Communications Workers of America have filed suit against President Trump, leading officials of 14 agencies that deal with health, safety, or the environment challenging Executive Order 13771 issued by the president and entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, 82 Fed. Reg. 9339 (2017), which requires, inter alia, that agencies eliminate 2 administrative rules for each new rule they promulgate and also that they achieve a zero net cost balance between new rules and rules eliminated. The complaint alleges that the president is attempting through the order to amend the statutes administered by these agencies by executive order in a manner that violates the separation of powers under the Constitution, the order violates the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed under Article II of the Constitution, requires action ultra vires by the various administrators involved who lack authority to alter their rules in violation of their respective statutes, involves action that is ultra vires by OMB dirrector, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act .
   Read the Complaint .
   Access the Public Citizen Press Release on the Case.
   Read the E.O. on Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.

The 9th Circuit Will Live-Stream Oral Argument in Immigrant and Refugee Executive Order Case
February 7, 2017. The 9th Circuit announced last evening that it will live-stream the audio of the oral argument in Washington v. Trump, as the Trump administration seeks to overturn the temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The court made clear that there will not be video for the argument, but only the audio. That argument is scheduled to begin at 3:00 PST.
Access the Oral Argument in Live-Stream.
Read the Court's modified order on the live-stream.

States and Other Parties Files Amicus Curiae Briefs in Washington v. Trump case.
February 7, 2017. A variety of parties and states have filed amicus curiae briefs in the Washington v. Trump case on the immigrant and refugee executive order now pending in the 9th Circuit. Among these is a brief filed by 14 states and the District of Columbia in support of Washington state's challenge to the order.
Read the Amicus Curiae Brief of the States and District of Columbia.
Access the 9th Circuit Washington v. Trump webpage.

Key Materials in 9th Circuit Consideration of Trump Executive Order Case Available
February 6, 2017. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has created a webpage with the case materials for Washington v. Trump, the appeal of Judge Robart's Temporary Restraining Order agains the Trump executive order on immigrants and refugees. In addition to key documents from the parties and material from the lower court, the page also provides amicus curiae briefs submitted by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACLU, Law Professors, Korematsu Center, and Technology Companies. The State of Minnesota had previously been joined. In addition, the State of Hawaii filed an emergency motion to intervene in the case.
   The video of the hearing on the TRO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
   Access the U.S. Emergency Motion for Stay of the TRO.
   Access the Washington State Reponse to the Emergency.
   Read Hawaii's Emergency Motion to Intervene Opposing the Order and the TRO.
   Access the Joint Declaration of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice Supporting the TRO and against the Order.
   Access the Order Denying an Immediate Stay Pending Full Consideration of the Emergency Motion.
   Access the Scheduling Order for the next steps in the case.
   Access the video of the district court hearing.
   Access the 9th Circuit Washington v. Trump webpage.

Judge Issues TRO in Washington State Suit Against Trump Executive Order
February 4, 2017. Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oregon has issued a temporary restraining order in a suit brought by the Attorney General of Washington against the executive order issued by President Trump on immigrants and refugees. (For more information on the initiation of the suit, see the post for January 30 below.)
   Read the TRO.
   Read the Attorney General's Press Release on the Order.
   Read the Complaint.

District Court in Massachusetts ACLU Executive Order Case on Immigrants and Refugees Denies Request to Extend TRO
February 2, 2017. A federal district court in Massachusetts has denied an ACLU request to extend the temporary restraining order against the executive order on immigrants and refugees. The decision was issued by Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, who is a different judge from the judge and the federal magistrate who issued the TRO earlier. Judge Gorton concluded that the permanent residents were no longer in danger since the White House said it would not enforce the order against them, although no formal modification of the executive order to that effect was issued. He then examined the allegations and concluded: "[B]ecause plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims, an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted." Louhghalam v. Trump, Civil Action No. 17-10154-NMG (2017, Memorandum and Order, at 20-21.
Read the Memorandum and Order.

City and County of San Francisco Files Suit Against Trump Administration
February 1, 2017. The city attorney for the City and County of San Franscisco has filed suit against the Trump executive order that addresses sanctuary cities, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction to block the administration from seeking to cut federal funds to the city and county
Read the Complaint.

ACLU of Massachusetts Files Expanded Challenge to Trump Immigrant and Refugee Order Joined by the State
February 1, 2017. The ACLU of Massachusetts has filed an amended complaint with a wider range of challenges to the Trump executive order on immigrants and refugees. The Massachusetts Attorney General announced today that her office would be joining that suit in support of the ACLU position.
   Read the Amended Complaint.
   Access the Mass. ACLU Web Page on the Case with Relevant Documents.
   Read the Mass. Attorney General Press Release on the Case.

Washington State Attorney General Files Suit Against Trump Executive Order
January 30, 2017. The Attorney General of Washington has filed suit challenging the executive order on immigrants and refugees. The suit names as defendants President Trump, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, the Department of Homeland Security which is the home department of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon, and the United States. It alleges discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment, establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, violations of due process under the Fifth Amendment, discriminatory visa procedures in violation of Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), denial of Asylum and Withholding of Removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3), returning asylum seekers to countries where they are in danger in violation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 16 note, implements the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994. Pub. L. 105-277, div. G, subdiv. B, title XXII, § 2242, violating protected religious freedom under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), and procedural and substantive violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Washington Attorney General asked the court for an expedited hearing within two weeks and seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction against implementation of the executive order.
   Read the Complaint.
   Read the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
   Read the Attorney General's Press Release on the Suit

District Court in Boston Enjoins Trump Order
January 29, 2017. Judge Allison D. Burroughs along with Magistrate Judge Judith Deinhas joined the three other courts that have issued temporary restraining orders against the Trump immigration and refugee executive order. In addition to visa-holders and refugees, the order specifically refers to citizens and permanent residents as well. The order also adds: "Customs and Border Protections shall notify airlines that have flights arriving at Logan Airport of the Order and the fact that individuals on these flights will not be detained or returned solely on the basis of the Executive Order." Pourabdollah v. Trump, Temporary Restraining Order, at 2.
Read the Order

Federal District Court in Alexandria Virgina Also Enjoins Executive Order
January 29, 2017. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has joined other judges who have issued temporary restraining orders against the Trump immigrant and refugee executive order. In this case, the judge's order legal permanent residents arriving at Dulles airport.
Read the Order

Federal District Judge in Seattle Issues Emergency Stay Against Removal of Individuals under Trump Order
January 29, 2017. Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has joined other judges in issuing an emergency stay of removal involving two individuals, and setting a hearing for February 3.
Read the Stay.

Federal Court Issues Injunction Against Trump Immigration Executive Order
January 29, 2017. Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has issued a temporary injunction against removal of any of those who hold valid visas or immigration documents who are from the seven countries identified in the executive order on immigration issued by President Trump (See posting below). The injunction was granted in the case of Darweesh v. Trump brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is a class action. The named plaintiffs are as the ACLU described them: "Hameed Darweesh, an Iraqi husband and father of three, worked for the U.S. military and his life was in danger in Iraq due to that relationship. The other plaintiff’s wife and son were threatened because of their perceived ties to the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained both men in JFK Airport in New York as they entered the country."
    The complaint alleges constitutional, treaty, and statutory violations with respect to both substantive and procedural aspects of the order. In her temporary injunction, Judge Donnelly specifically found that: The petitioners have a high likelihood of success in establishing that removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guranteed by the United States Constitution." Decision and Order, at 1. She specifically ordered that U.S. officials are "Enjoined and restrained from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen legally authorized to enter the United States." Id., at 2.
    Similar orders have been issued in other cases by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington.
    Earlier on Saturday, the U.S. State Department issued the following statement on it "Urgent Notice: Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, January 27, 2017. Urgent Notice Per the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to nationals of the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further notification. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time. If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND. You will not be permitted entry to the Embassy/Consulate. We will announce any other changes affecting travelers to the United States as soon as that information is available."
   Read the Decision and Order
   Read the Complaint
   Read the ACLU blog press statement on the case.
   Read the ACLU statement and materials page on the case.
   Access the State Department News Statement.

President Issues Executive Order on Immigration and Refugee Controls
January 28, 2017. President Trump has issued an executive order directing what he has previously termed a system of extreme vetting and other immigration controls and refugess limits.
Read the Executive Order

President Issues Executive Orders on Border Security and Enforcement and Sanctuary Cities and States
January 25, 2017. President Trump has issued an executive order on border security and enforcement and another on sanctuary jurisdictions entitled Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. U.S. media, and particularly the Washington Post, have published a draft EO on immigration and refugees, though that one has not yet been formally issued by the White House. It will be posted here as soon as it becomes official.
Read the EO on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (Sanctuary Jurisdictions)
Read the EO on Border Security and Enforcement.

Federal Judge Issues Injunction Against Indiana Governor's Ban on Support for Syrian Refugees
March 6, 2016. Citing a clear case of discrimination on the basis of national origin, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has issued a preliminary injunction against Governor Mark Pence's 2015 order to state agencies to withhold from aid agencies any refugee resettlement funds or programs for Syrian refugees. The case Exodus Refugee Immigration v. Pence, was brought by the ACLU on behalf of the nonprofit refugee resettlement agency, alleging discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as federal preemption. Although Judge Pratt focused her ruling on the likelihood of a finding of discrimination, she also indicated that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the preemption claim as well.
   Read the Order Granting the Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the complaint and request for injunction.
   Read the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the State's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
   Read the United States Statement of Interest in the Case.

ACLU Sues to Counter Indiana Governor's Refusal to Accept Syrian Refugees
November 23, 2015. The ACLU of Indiana has filed suit against Indiana Governor Mark Pence, asserting that his order to Indiana state agencies to suspend any refugee resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state violateed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is preempted by federal immigration statutes. The case, Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, Case 1:15-cv- 1:15-cv-01858-TWP-DKL, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The suit asserts that: "Governor Pence has taken the extraordinary step of ordering all state agencies to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Indiana. And, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which is the agency within which is located Indiana’s Refugee Resettlement Office and which supervises and dispenses various forms of primarily federally-funded assistance to refugees, is precluded from doing so and has concurred in the Governor’s suspension of Indiana resettlement of Syrian refugees. The actions of the Governor and the Family and Social Services Administration violate equal protection and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and are preempted." Complaint, at 1. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction against the governor's action in the near term and a permanent injunction in due course.
   On November 16 Governor Pence issued a statement on Syrian refugees. "In the wake of the horrific attacks in Paris, effective immediately, I am directing all state agencies to suspend the resettlement of additional Syrian refugees in the state of Indiana pending assurances from the federal government that proper security measures have been achieved. Indiana has a long tradition of opening our arms and homes to refugees from around the world but, as governor, my first responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of all Hoosiers. Unless and until the state of Indiana receives assurances that proper security measures are in place, this policy will remain in full force and effect.” Press release. Following that statement, the Family and Social Services Administration's Office of Refugee Programs notified Exodus Refugee Immigration, the nonprofit organization that does refugee resettlement in the state with funds from federal programs provided to the state, that they should notify the federal agencies that they would not be able to accept a Syrian family scheduled for resettlement in Indiana or any future resettlements while the governor's directive was in force. Complaint, at 10. Although he had made this statement, and Indiana agencies, including the Family and Social Service Administration and the Indiana Department of health, are responding to the statement, the Governor has not issued a formal executive order on the subject as of this date.)
   Read the Complaint.
   Read the Governor Pence's Statement.
   Access the White House statement on Syrian refugees after the Paris attacks.

UNHCR Announces Dramatic Increases of Refugee Flows Into Europe Even as the Death Toll Rises and A Truck Filled with Bodies Is Discovered in Austria
August 30, 2015. UNHCR Spokesperson Melissa Fleming in a news conference on August 28 announced that even as the death toll rises for those seeking to reach Europe from Africa and the Middle East, so do the numbers of refugees making the trip. "The number of refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean this year has now exceeded 300,000, including almost 200,000 people landing in Greece and 110,000 in Italy. This represents a large increase from last year, when around 219,000 people crossed the Mediterranean during the whole of 2014. At the same time, some 2,500 refugees and migrants are estimated to have died or gone missing this year, trying to reach Europe. This death toll does not include yesterday's tragedy off Libya where numbers of deaths are still unconfirmed. Last year some 3,500 people died or were reported missing in the Mediterranean Sea." These figures, she said, did not count a number of major epsiodes involving vessels over the previous week.
   On the same day, Fleming also announced that police had found the bodies of 71 people inside a truck abandoned near the Austrian border with Hungary. "This tragedy underscores the ruthlessness of people smugglers who have expanded their business from the Mediterranean sea to the highways of Europe. It shows they have no regard for human life and are only after profit." This news came as heads of state and international officials were attending a summit on the refugee crisis in Vienna.
   Read the Press Briefing on Mediterranean Crossing.
   Read the Press Briefing on those Found in the Truck in Austria.

Federal District Court Orders Action on Immigration Detention of Minors By October
August 30, 2015. Federal District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee of Federal District Court for the Central District of California has issued an order and opinion in the Flores v. Lych case concerning children and families in immigration detention, rejecting the government's motion for reconsideration and affirming the remedy she issued on July 24 (see posting below) with some modifications and a deadline of October 23. In introducing her order, Judge Gee quoted Mahatma Gandhi “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Order, at 1.
    Judge Gee concludes: "The Court orders Defendants to implement the following remedies by no later than October 23, 2015:
   1. As required by Paragraph 18 of the Agreement, Defendants, upon taking an accompanied class member into custody, shall make and record prompt and continuous efforts toward family reunification and the release of the minor pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Agreement.
   2. Unless otherwise required by the Agreement or the law, Defendants shall comply with Paragraph 14A of the Agreement by releasing class members without unnecessary delay in first order of preference to a parent, including a parent who either was apprehended with a class member or presented herself or himself with a class member. Class members not released pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Agreement will be processed in accordance with the Agreement, including, as applicable, Paragraphs 6, 9, 21, 22, and 23.
   3. Subject to Paragraph 12A of the Agreement, accompanied class members shall not be detained by Defendants in unlicensed or secure facilities that do not meet the requirements of Paragraph 6 of the Settlement or, in appropriate cases, as set forth in the Agreement, in facilities that do not meet the requirements of Paragraphs 12A, 21, and 23. Defendants shall not selectively apply the “influx” provision of Paragraph 12C of the Agreement to house class members apprehended with a parent in facilities that do not comply with the Agreement.
   4. To comply with Paragraph 14A of the Agreement and as contemplated in Paragraph 15, a class member’s accompanying parent shall be released with the class member in accordance with applicable laws and regulations unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention under applicable law or after an individualized custody determination the parent is determined to pose a significant flight risk, or a threat to others or the national security, and the flight risk or threat cannot be mitigated by an appropriate bond or conditions of release.
   5. As contemplated in Paragraph 28A of the Agreement, Defendants or their Regional Juvenile Coordinator shall monitor compliance with their acknowledged standards and procedures for detaining class members in facilities that are safe and sanitary, consistent with concern for the particular vulnerability of minors, and consistent with Paragraph 12 of the Agreement, including access to adequate drinking water and food, toilets and sinks, medical assistance if the minor is in need of emergency services, temperature control, ventilation, adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. In the alternative, the parties may stipulate to the appointment of a special monitor for this purpose.
   6. Defendants shall monitor compliance with the Agreement and this Order and shall provide Class Counsel on a monthly basis statistical information collected pursuant to Paragraph 28A of the Agreement."
   Read the August 21 Order.

Federal District Court Rules Against Federal Detention Practices for Minors
July 27, 2015. Federal District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee of Federal District Court for the Central District of California has found the existing detention conditions for children and some family members in Texas detention centers in violation of the 1997 settlement in Flores case. The case also addresses questions concerning whether detention is acceptable for children under the agreement.
   Read the July 24 ruling.
   Access the Original Flores Settlement of 1997.
   Access the 1987 Memorandum of Understanding that Was the Foundation for the Flores Settlement.

UN Releases Syria Chemical Weapons Inspectors' Report As It also Issues Reports on the Refugee Flows from Syria to European Nations in Addition to Its Impact on Countries Bordering Syria
September 17, 2013. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has released the report of the chemical weapons inspection team sent to Syria to assess whether such weapons had been used in recent attacks. As the UN press release on the report explained, "The team, led by Swedish scientist Dr. Åke Sellström, also concludes in particular that the environmental, chemical and medical samples collected provide “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-air rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah, and Zamalka, in the Ghouta area of Damascus.” The report does not attribute responsibility for the attach.
   The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has recently released reports of the impacts of the refugees flowing out of the Middle East into European Countries from Italy to Bulgaria and other states.
   Read the Inspectors' Report.
   Read the UN press release.
   Access the UNHCR webpage of Syria's Refugee Crisis.

UNHCR Seeks to Call Attention to Violence Against Displaced Moslems in Myanmar
August 13, 2013. The UNHCR has called for action to address the increasing violence against moslems in Myanmar. Reporting recent violence in Rakhine state, the UNHCR says: "Some 140,000 people remain internally displaced in Rakhine state following last year's inter-communal violence. An additional 36,000 people in isolated areas and host communities in the state have also been adversely affected, with little or no access to work and basic services."
Read the UNHCR Report

UNHCR Publishes Safe Haven Report on Safe Havens for Persons Who Experiened Sexual or Gender-Based Violence
August 9, 2013. The UNHCR has published a set of reports prepared by Kim Thuy Seelinger and Julie Freccero of the Human Rights Center Sexual Violence Program at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. In addition to the complete report that considers the safe haven situation in Colombia, Haiti, Kenya, and Thailand, there are individual reports for each of those countries posted below.
   Read the Comparative Report
   Read the Colombia Report
   Read the Haiti Report
   Read the Kenya Report
   Read the Thailand Report

January 5, 2013. The UNHCR has published a paper done by Jane Elizabeth Lawson entitled "What Happens After the War? How Refugee Camp Peach Programmes Contribute to Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Strategies."
Read the Report

UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Unit Publishes Study on Refugee Camp Peace Programs and Their Contribution to Post-Conflict Peacebuilding
January 5, 2013. The UNHCR has published a paper done by Jane Elizabeth Lawson entitled "What Happens After the War? How Refugee Camp Peach Programmes Contribute to Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Strategies."
Read the Report

UNHCR Publishes State of the World's Refugees 2012
October 17, 2012. The UNHCR has published the 2012 edition of its State of the World's Refugees series. The full document has been published commercially, but a synthesis of the report is available on the Internet. It reports some 33.9 million people of concern to UNHCR, including refugees and internally displaced persons. The number of internally displaced persons is the fastest growing group which UNHCR estimates at 14.7 million people as of 2011, but adds that the number may be as high as 27.5 million. For a variety of reasons, the numbers of internally displaced people is almost always undercounted.
   The older editions of the State of the World's Refugees report are available on the Internet.
   Read the State of the World's Refugees 2012 Synthesis.
   Access the 2006 Report "Human Displacement in the New Millennium."
   Access the 2000 Report "Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action."
   Access the 1997 Report "A Humanitarian Agenda."
   Access the 1995 Report "In Search of Solutions."
   Access the 1993 Report "The Challenge of Protection."

UN Secretary General Issues Report on Children and Armed Conflict
June 14, 2012. The UN Secretary General has issued the annual report on Children and Armed Conflict. This report and other initiatives were mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1998 of 2011 along with previous resolutions of the Security Council that seek to monitor the situation, including resolutions 1261 (1999), 1314 (2000), 1379 (2011), 1460 (2003), 1539 (2004), 1612 (2005), 1882 (2009) and 1998 (2011). The report addresses not only the dangers to children in conflict situations, but also issues related to child soldiers and other involvement of children in the conflict. These resolutions and other UN actions are efforts to ensure implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000). In addition to the report which lays out the threats to children during the 2011, the SG has added Annexes each of which is termed a "List of Shame" and draws attention to groups and countries which pose particular dangers as well as a "List of Persistent Perpetrators."
   The UN has also created a website as a central point of access for materials on Children and Armed Conflict. Among the documents there is a "Working Paper No. 3: Children and Justice During and in the Aftermatch of Armed Conflict" (2011). All previous SG reports are posted on that site as well.
   Read the Secretary General's Report.
   Read Annex I "List of Shame."
   Read Annex II "List of Shame."
   Read the "List of Persistent Perpetrators."
   Read the Press Release to Accompany the Report.
   Read UN Security Council Resolution 1998 (2011).
   Read the "Working Paper No. 3: Children and Justice During and in the Aftermatch of Armed Conflict."
   Access the Children and Armed Conflict Website .
   Read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
   Read the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000).

Supreme Court Rejects Claim Against Palestinian Authority for Alleged Torture and Killing of Critic
April 18, 2012. Justice Sotomayor has written an opinion for the Court rejecting a claim against the Palestinian Authority that was brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act 28 U.S.C. §1350 note alleging that a critic of the PNA was tortured and killed and that the authority should be subject to claims under the act. Sotomayor wrote: "The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA orAct), 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, authorizes a cause of action against '[a]n individual' for actsof torture and extrajudicial killing committed under authority or color of law of any foreign nation. We hold that the term 'individual' as used in the Act encompasses only natural persons. Consequently, the Act does not imposeliability against organizations." Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, Slip opinion at 1.
This case was initially argued along with another case that sought to determine whether claims could be brought against corporate entities. This was No. 10-1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell and involves claims for damages on grounds that the company supported actions by the government of Nigeria involving torture and other atrocities against Nigerians who protested pollution and other issues related to Shell Oil's operations in the country. The Court has called for reargument in that case. For more details and relevant documents, go to the Refugees page of this website. See the posting below for more information on that case.
Read the opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court Calls for Reargument After Hearing Cases Claiming Damages Against Corporations and Other Entities for Alleged Human Rights Violations
March 6, 2012. After hearing oral arguments in two cases in which individuals brought suit against corporations or other kinds of entities for liability in cases alleging injuries suffered as a result of violations of internationally recognized human rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has called for additional briefs and reargument on an even broader issue that was originally presented in one of the cases. The Court's order issued on March 5 directed: "This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: "Whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350, allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States." The supplemental brief of petitioners is due on or before Thursday, May 3, 2012. The supplemental brief of respondents is due on or before Monday, June 4, 2012. The reply brief is due on or before Friday, June 29, 2012. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by Rule 37.3(a). The word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs."
   There were two cases argued in the previous week. The first is No. 10-1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell and involves claims for damages on grounds that the company supported actions by the government of Nigeria involving torture and other atrocities against Nigerians who protested pollution and other issues related to Shell Oil's operations in the country. This case was brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. §1350. It is this case on which the Court has called for reargument. The other case is No. 11-88, Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority and involves alleged torture and killing of a critic of the Palestinian Authority. The suit was brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act 28 U.S.C. §1350 note. Both the companies in the first case and the PLA in the second claim they are not subject to suit under these laws.
   Read the Court's order calling for additional briefs and reargument in Kiobel.
   Read the Brief for the Petitioner in Kiobel.
   Read the Brief for the Respondents Kiobel.
   Read Amicus Curiae Brief of the United States supporting the petitioner in Kiobel.
   Read the Oral Argument Transcript in Kiobel.
   Listen to the Oral Argument Audio in Kiobel.
   Read Brief of the Petitioner in the PLA case.
   Read Brief of the Repondent in the PLA case.
   Read Amicus Curiae Brief of the United States supporting affirmace of the lower court in the PLA case (in favor of PLA).
   Read the Oral Argument Transcript in PLA.
   Listen to the Oral Argument Audio in PLA.

U.S. and Canada Move Forward on Controversial "Beyond the Borders" Initiative
September 15, 2011. The U.S. and Canada have created a joint Beyond the Border Working Group to develop policy for information sharing and coopertion on immigration and economic issues. This began with a joint declaration issued by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper in February. Portions of agreements have been leaked to the Canadian press which have prompted concerns particularly in the Canadian press and other Canadians about the protection of privacy rights. The Rideau Institute has issued a report entitled "Shared Vision or Myopia: The Politics of Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness" critical of the policy proposals.
   Read President OBama's and Prime Minister Harper's joint declaration "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness.
   Access the Beyond the Border Working Group Website.
   Read the Report on Consultations on Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness.
   Read the Rideau Institute "Shared Vision or Myopia" Report.

Ninth Circuit Ruling Opens Discussions of Women as Target Group in Guatemala
July 27, 2010. A panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in the Perdomo v. Holder, No. 06-71652, that addresses the claim that women in Guatemala constitute a particular group that may have a well founded fear of persecution and thuse be eligible for refugee status under U.S. law. The appeal came from a rejection by an Immigration judge of the claim that as a Guatemalan woman between 14 and 40 years of age Perdomo was a member of a particular group that faced a well founded fear of persectution. She ruled that Perdomo was not a member of a particular social group entitled to consideration for refugee status, but part of a demographic that was not a particular group that would qualify under the law. A panel of the Ninth Circuit did not resolve the final question in the case, but did reject the finding by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals that Perdomo's claim concerned a group too broad and not adequately defined to qualify for refugee consideration. The panel concluded: "We therefore remand for the BIA to determine in the first instance whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether Perdomo has demonstrated a fear of persecution 'on account of' her membership in such a group." Slip opinion at 9936.
Read the opinion.

Pakistan Fighting Sends Thousands Into Flight
May 11, 2009. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a plea for special international assistance for refugees fleeing the fighting between Pakistan's military and Taliban fighters in the northwestern part of Pakistan. The UNHCR announcement notes that as of this date some 360,000 have registered with the agency with many more unregistered and in dire conditions. The latest version of that document is a 2007 report.
Access the UNHCR Release on the State of the Pakistan Refugee Challenge.

NGO Partnerships in Refugee Protection
May 12, 2009. The UNHCR published some time ago an interesting document on NGO partnerships which have become extremely important as many countries have scaled back or even eliminated direct services in the field outside their borders.
Access the UNHCR NGO Partnerships in Refugee Protection.
Access additional UNHCR Partnership Information.

Federal Court of Canada Ruling Strikes Down "Safe Third Country" Agreement with U.S.
November 30, 2007. Judge Michael Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada has issued an opinion in the case of Canadian Concil for Refugees v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2007 FC 1262, striking down the so-called "Safe Third Country Agreement" between Canada and the United States limited the ability of parties who seek to move from one country to the other to perfect a claim for refugee status. Justice Phelan, wrote in part that: "For the reasons outlined in this judgment, the United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to enter into a STCA. The U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the Convention Against Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example). Further, the STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter. Finally, the Canadian government has not conducted the on-going review mandated by Parliament despite both the significant passage of time since the commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently available." Slip opinion at 7. As this excerpt indicates, there were several grounds for the ruling, including a finding that the practices permitted violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
. Access the opinion.

National Academy Releases PTSD Report
October 19, 2007. The Committee on Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder of the National Academy, Institute of Medicine's Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice has issued a report entitled Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: An Assessment of the Evidence. The report, requested by the Veterans Administration, assesses existing evidence on treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome in the wake of national debate on services available to returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
. Access the PTSD report.

UNHCR Issues Updated Compendium of International Legal Documents on Refugees and Other of Concern to UNHCR
July 13. 2007. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a new compendium of the international legal documents that apply to refugees and others of concern to UNHCR. The last edition was published in 1995
   Read Vol. 1
   Read Vol. 2
   Read Vol. 3
   Read Vol. 4

Congress Enacts the REAL ID Act P.L. 109-13 Making Dramatic Changes in Asylum Policy and Other Key Areas
May 11, 2005. President Bush today signed into law P.L. 109-13, an emergency appropriations act for military operations and homeland security matters, but contained within it is the hotly debated REAL ID Act. While most attention during the debates was focused on provisions requiring demonstration of citizenship or legal residency in order to obtain a driver's license, the legislation also significantly change U.S. asylum policy among other key changes.
Read the Act

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Publishes Report Critical of U.S. Expedited Removal
February 8, 2005. The congressionally chartered U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has published a report entitled "Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal." The report found inconsistent application of policy and procedures in different parts of the U.S. and raised significant questions about conditions of confinement for those who are detained prending action on their asylum request.
Read the Executive Summary or Full Report

International Reports & Documents

UNHCR Report: The State of the World's Refugees 2006
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/template?page=publ&src=static/sowr2006/toceng.htm

International Agencies

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

UNHCR Report: The State of the World's Refugees 2006
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/template?page=publ&src=static/sowr2006/toceng.htm

UNHCR The State of the World's Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/template?page=publ&src=static/sowr2000/toceng.htm

UNHCR The State of the World's Refugees 1997: A Humanitarian Agenda
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ?id=3eef1d896

UNHCR Refugees by Numbers 2005
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics/opendoc.htm?tbl=BASICS&id=3b028097c

UNHCR NGO Partnerships in Refugee Protection
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/partners/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PARTNERS&id=41c162d04

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
http://www.unhchr.ch/

National Agencies

Citizenship and Immigration Canada
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/

U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/index.htm

U.S. Department of State
http://www.state.gov/index.cfm

Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/orr/

State Refugee Agencies and Refugee Coordinators
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/orr/StateRef.htm#STATE

Refugee Law Sites

AsylumLaw.org
http://www.asylumlaw.org

The University of Michigan Law School Refugee Case Law Site
http://www.refugeecaselaw.org/Refugee/index.htm

The Refugee Law Center
http://www.refugeelawcenter.org/

National and International Nongovernmental Organizations

Refugee Council of Australia
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/

British Refugee Council
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/0201/home/home001.htm

Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford
http://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/rsp/

Center for Refugee Studies, York University, Canada
http://www.yorku.ca/crs/

Center for Victims of Torture
http://www.cvt.org/

Canadian Center for Victims of Torture
http://www.icomm.ca/ccvt/Overview.html

Canadian Council for Refugees
http://www.ccrweb.ca/eng/engfront/frontpage.htm

European Council on Refugees and Exiles
http://www.ecre.org/

EU Networks on the Integration of Refugees
http://www.refugeenet.org/

Norwegian Refugee Council
http://www.nrc.no/engindex.htm

Swedish Network of Asylum and Refugee Support Groups (FARR)
http://hem.passagen.se/asylum/ovrigt3.html

U.S. Committee for Refugees
http://www.refugees.org/

Other Web Resources

Guide to International Refugee Law Resources on the Web
http://www.llrx.com/features/refugee.htm

UNHCR Images of Refugees
http://www.unhcr.ch/images/images.htm