Author Archives: Richard Irwin

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 18, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

NILC Applauds Justice Department Request for Rehearing in U.S. v. Texas

LOS ANGELES — Following a Supreme Court deadlock in June that left millions of immigrant families across the country in limbo, the U.S. Department of Justice today filed a motion for rehearing in United States v. Texas, the case involving the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration executive actions.

If granted, a rehearing would allow both sides to reargue the case before the nation’s highest court after a ninth justice is confirmed, making it much less likely that the result would remain a stalemate. A favorable decision in the case would provide much-needed clarity for the country and finally free up for implementation the administration’s deferred action initiatives, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Marielena Hincapié, executive director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court failed millions of immigrant families, and our country as a whole, when it deadlocked in U.S. v. Texas. Now, the justices have an opportunity to right this wrong and fulfill their duty to the American people.

“U.S. v. Texas is without a doubt one of the most consequential immigration cases in recent history. It is appropriate and, in fact, necessary for the Court to rehear the case with a full bench and deliver a decisive ruling. We commend the Justice Department for taking a necessary first step toward ensuring that those whose lives are hanging in the balance get a fair day in court. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize that the millions of families living in limbo—and our country as a whole—deserve better than a nondecision. We beseech the justices to grant a rehearing.”

Announced by the Department of Homeland Security in November 2014, DAPA and the expansion of DACA are programs intended to build off the success of the administration’s 2012 DACA initiative, which allows eligible undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as children to live and work here temporarily without fear of deportation. DAPA would extend similar benefits to certain undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, while the expansion of DACA would broaden eligibility for DACA, making the program available to a larger range of people.

The original (2012) DACA initiative was not challenged in U.S. v Texas and remains open to eligible applicants.

# # #

The need to shed light on gang databases and fight the criminalization of people of color

NILC and other orgs work to shed light on gang databases and fight the criminalization of people of color

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Shiu-Ming Cheer, NILC senior staff attorney
JULY 14, 2016

The National Immigration Law Center, along with the Youth Justice Coalition, CHIRLA, Policy Link and Urban Peace Institute, are co-sponsors of AB 2298, a California bill that would provide notification to adults who are entered into a gang database, a process for contesting that inclusion, and the ability to petition for removal from the system.

Gang databases have been used by law enforcement to criminalize people of color and immigrants, who are often targets of racial profiling. “Secret” databases like gang databases undermine fundamental values such as transparency and accountability. Adults have no way of knowing whether they are on a gang database, and no way of challenging their inclusion.

Being on a gang database leads to serious consequences such as increased probability of criminal conviction, sentence enhancements, loss of employment, and eviction from public housing. Alleged gang members are not eligible to apply for immigration relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and are considered a “priority” for deportation.

At a state Senate hearing, Juan Peña, an undocumented member of the Youth Justice Coalition, testified about his first police interrogation at age 10 at school. He described how law enforcement officers question him on a regular basis and explained that he hasn’t applied for DACA for fear of being on a gang database.

In another example of the real harms caused by gang databases, Aaron Harvey, a young black man from San Diego, was thrown into jail and faced a life sentence because his name was on a gang database. He was said to be associated with a gang that allegedly committed numerous shootings, and Harvey was charged with criminal street gang conspiracy to commit a felony even though he didn’t even live in the state when the shootings occurred. The judge in the case eventually dismissed the charges, but only after Mr. Harvey spent seven months in jail.

AB 2298 represents one step toward bringing transparency and accountability to the use of gang databases and would help address the criminalization faced by people of color simply for living in particular neighborhoods.

U.S. Senate Rejects Attacks on Community-Policing Policies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 6, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

U.S. Senate Rejects Attacks on Community-Policing Policies

WASHINGTON —Today, the U.S. Senate rejected attempts to move forward two bills that would have eroded hard-won community-policing policies in so-called sanctuary cities and further criminalized immigrants. The two bills, sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would have penalized jurisdictions that have community-trust policies by withholding federal funds aimed at rebuilding and revitalizing communities, and would have created new mandatory minimum sentences for undocumented immigrants charged with unlawful reentry, respectively.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The politics of xenophobia and fear-mongering lost today. Sen. Toomey and Sen. Cruz’s bills would have threatened public safety and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, all while scapegoating immigrant communities. We are glad that neither of these backward proposals will see the light of day, and we commend those who chose to stand in recognition of immigrants’ contributions to our communities rather than use them as scapegoats.”

# # #

NILC Opposes Bills Attacking Community-Policing Policies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 5, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

NILC Opposes Bills Attacking Community-Policing Policies

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate is expected to vote tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to consider two bills that, by attacking so-called sanctuary cities, where local police have adopted practices to encourage community safety for all residents, threaten to undo hard-won community-policing policies. One bill, S. 3100, sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would withhold federal funds for economic, social, and community development services from local governments with “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The other, known as Kate’s Law and sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), would impose additional mandatory minimum sentencing for undocumented immigrants charged with illegal reentry, at a cost of $2 billion to taxpayers.

The following is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“Sen. Toomey’s proposal is an affront to communities that have fought to ensure that all residents, regardless of where they were born, feel safe in our communities and feel safe interacting with local police. It is an attempt to coerce cities into adopting policies that undermine public safety and should not be allowed to become law. Sen. Cruz’s bill should also be rejected. It would waste billions of taxpayer dollars and force a draconian, one-size-fits-all punishment at a time when criminal justice reform advocates from both sides of the aisle are calling for more, not less, discretion.

“The practical effect of further criminalizing immigrants and threatening to withhold funds designated for much-needed community and economic development programs is to pit vulnerable populations—especially people of color—against each other. We know that communities are safer when local governments and law enforcements officials don’t have to act as immigration agents. And it is simply unacceptable to hold hostage funds intended to help communities prosper.

“Senators should see past Toomey’s rhetoric and recognize tomorrow’s votes on the motions to proceed for what they are: an effort to exploit rising nativism to scapegoat immigrants. We are better than this, and the Senate should be, too. We fully expect those who believe in sound policy to vote ‘no’ tomorrow on the motions to proceed.”

# # #

In his final months in office, will the president choose compassion or more deportations?

In his final months in office, will President Obama choose compassion or more deportations?

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Avideh Moussavian, NILC policy attorney
JUNE 30, 2016

The Supreme Court tie in U.S. v. Texas was a frustrating setback for millions of immigrant families, but the fight must continue and another question of historical significance for immigrants looms large: Will President Obama, in the final months of his administration, continue to round up and deport Central American mothers, children and youth seeking safe refuge in the United States?

Since the first days of 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has engaged in a series of aggressive raids targeting hundreds of women, children and youth who have fled El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They come from countries that have suffered from conflicts and massive economic instability — largely as a result of wars and foreign trade policies that have benefited the U.S. while incubating treacherous conditions of organized crime and corruption and epidemic levels of violence, particularly gender-based violence. Like millions of other refugees before them and today — those of Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere — these are families and youth seeking protection. They have fled out of a life-threatening necessity to choose between life and near certain death. We should hardly call this a choice at all.

And yet, instead of embracing this population and offering safe haven, this is how our government has responded: It has used the terrifying tactic of raids — surprise, early morning arrival of multiple, heavily armed officers who provide false or misleading information to gain entry into homes or to arrest young people on their way to school or work. It has also locked up mothers, children and youth who have survived trauma and violence, who overwhelmingly have strong claims for protection but who may have never had an attorney a real chance to explore their legal rights, or a fair day in court. For some of these families, they were only spared deportation after literally being pulled off a deportation flight at the very last minute because they were able to find a lawyer who filed an asylum claim for them. When the stakes are life and death, due process means protecting rights every step of the way

The Obama administration has tried to sanitize the brutal nature of these raids by calling these Central American mothers, children and youth “enforcement priorities” and saying that by imposing the harsh punishment of arrest, detention and deportation on those who manage to survive the treacherous journey to the U.S., it is sending a message of “deterrence.” It is telling the world that our message to refugees is, “Don’t come.”

We are so much better than this as a nation. When developing nations host an estimated 86 percent of the world’s refugees, we can certainly be more generous. We have been so much more welcoming in the past, and we must live up to our best values. The message to President Obama is: Stop the raids. Respond to this as an urgent refugee situation. Explore the root causes for the violence and poverty these Central Americans are fleeing. Make sure anyone facing deportation has a truly fair day in court. President Obama’s immigration legacy — and the credibility of some of our finest American values — depends on it.

Immigrant Families Deserve a Decisive Answer, Not a Supreme Nondecision

Immigrant Families Deserve a Decisive Answer,
Not a Supreme Nondecision

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Melissa Keaney, NILC staff attorney
JUNE 28, 2016

The Supreme Court failed millions of immigrant families, who waited in vain for news about whether they could begin contributing more fully to their communities. We deserve better. The court can and should correct this grave error by agreeing to rehear the case when it is fully functional. And, the Court has a process to do just that — by granting what is called “rehearing” of the case.

Last week, the Court split evenly on whether the executive branch was within its lawful authority in announcing two initiatives — an expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). These initiatives would allow millions of immigrants with long-term ties to the United States to apply for deportation deferral and work authorization. This non-decision leaves in place by default the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to keep these initiatives blocked, leaving immigrants in limbo.

Rehearing is appropriate, in fact, necessary, when the Supreme Court is deadlocked to ensure that cases of national significance do not remain unresolved simply because an unexpected vacancy prevents a majority decision. Granting rehearing in Texas is in line with the Court’s prior treatment of rehearing requests and absolutely essential where, as here, the issues are of such profound national significance to both American families and the American legal system.

Supreme Court Rule 44 essentially creates a procedure to allow the Court to re-examine its prior decisions. This is extraordinarily uncommon. Indeed, while it is extremely rare for rehearing to be granted when the case was decided by a majority, it is more common for the Court to re-hear cases where a vacancy prevented a majority opinion. And our legal system needs such a rule in cases like United States v. Texas.

Most recently this happened when Justice Roberts was appointed Chief Justice in the wake of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s death. Several cases, includingGarcetti v. Ceballos and Kansas v. Marsh were heard before the Court during the time between Rehnquist’s death and the confirmation of Justice Alito. The Justices, excluding Justice Alito, voted to rehear the cases upon the start of Justice Alito’s tenure on the bench.

History provides us with additional examples of the utility of this rule. During the Court’s 1954 term after Justice Jackson died suddenly of a heart attack, the Court heard re-argument in three cases after Justice Jackson was replaced by Justice Harlan.

The Court need not even wait for a ninth Justice to be confirmed before granting rehearing. When Justice McReynolds retired on January 31, 1941, the Court granted three rehearing petitions even before Justice Byrnes was confirmed to fill the vacancy.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court denied rehearing in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. This should not deter the Court from rehearing the Texas case. Friedrichs is an entirely different situation as there was no nationwide injunction and presently there are dozens of cases on the issue working their way through the federal courts, providing ample opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue. This is simply not true of Texas, where a nationwide injunction imposed by a single court would be allowed to stand without rehearing. Moreover, Friedrichs involved an explicit request to overturn settled Supreme Court law (the Abood case), which provides adequate guidance to the lower courts considering the issue at hand.

The Supreme Court must rehear the Texas case when nine Justices can decide it — not only for the sake of the families who await the opportunity to apply for DAPA and the DACA expansion, but also for all of our communities who would benefit from such an opening. Indeed, requesting a rehearing would cost the Obama administration little more than its time. And the cost of not doing so is untenable.

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Supreme Court Rightly Upholds Women’s Constitutional Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, U.S. Supreme Court Rightly Upholds Women’s Constitutional Rights

WASHINGTON — The National Immigration Law Center applauds the 5-3 decision announced today by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Texas law, HB2, that severely restricted a woman’s constitutional right and ability—no matter where she lives—to make her own decisions about her health, family, and future.

The court found in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that HB2, which forced the shutdown of more than half of the abortion clinics in the state, infringed upon a woman’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights. The decision means that the clinics that remained open after the law was enacted will be able to stay open and others can resume services to meet the health needs of women in the many underserved areas of the state.

More broadly, the court established a strong legal standard that will protect women’s constitutional rights in states beyond Texas.

The following is a statement by Marielena Hincapié, NILC’s executive director:

“The Supreme Court rightly struck down a law that unlawfully interfered in a women’s right to make her own health decisions. By removing needless barriers, the Court has affirmed that all women, regardless of where they live, have the right to be treated with the same compassion, respect, and dignity as anyone else.

“In March 2015, I had the honor of serving as a human rights commissioner during the Nuestro Texas Women’s Human Rights Hearing—organized by the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health—and met courageous and resilient women who spoke of unconscionable barriers to their reproductive health, including accessing critical preventive care such as cervical and breast cancer screenings. I also had the opportunity to visit Whole Women’s Health and witnessed first-hand how empowering and necessary their services are for low-income immigrant women in the Rio Grande Valley.

“The Texas law was especially harmful to Latinas of reproductive age who already face significant barriers to accessing health services, including poverty, immigration status, distance, inability to take time off from work, and lack of child care. Even before enacting HB2, the state gutted public family planning services that many Latinas depended on for contraception and other reproductive health services.

“Policymakers and advocates alike know that much more needs to be done to ensure that all women have access to meaningful, quality care. Today’s decision helps prevent a dangerous erosion of health access that could have made efforts to create truly healthy communities difficult, if not impossible.”

# # #

Court Orders Release of Some Evidence of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities While Border Patrol Fights Full Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

Court Orders Release of Some Evidence of Arizona Border Patrol Detention Facilities While Border Patrol Fights Full Release

Order follows attempts by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to keep all evidence of unconstitutional detention conditions from the public

LOS ANGELES — Today, a federal district court unsealed some of the photographs central to ongoing litigation challenging deplorable and unconstitutional conditions in Border Patrol detention facilities in the agency’s Tucson Sector. The court also allowed the Arizona Republic newspaper to intervene in the case to argue for the release of the documents.

The initial evidence released today is only a portion of the evidence submitted in support of a motion for preliminary injunction filed in December, with the government fighting the release of additional evidence remaining under seal. The injunction is based on compelling evidence of inhumane conditions in Tucson facilities—much of which was disclosed after the Court sanctioned Border Patrol for destroying video recordings from these facilities and failing to turn over other relevant documentation.

“Border Patrol’s treatment of men, women and children in its custody is simply inexcusable and their lack of transparency shows their desire to avoid any public oversight or accountability,” said Mary Kenney, senior staff attorney for the American Immigration Council.

“Every step the Government has taken in response to this lawsuit has been designed to delay this suit and hide the conditions present at these facilities,” said Louise Stoupe of Morrison & Foerster. “The Government should be using the resources they are wasting in court to provide basic human necessities to those in its custody.”

“Migrants detained in the Tucson sector have long suffered horrific conditions,” said Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the ACLU of Arizona. “The Border Patrol continues to resist public transparency to enable continuation of detention operations that knowingly violate U.S. and international law as well as its own standards.”

“The images unsealed by the court are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “These abuses have been kept hidden for too long. As these initial images begin to reveal, we can no longer wait for meaningful and lasting reforms; the time is now.”

Jane Doe, et al. v. Johnson, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Attorneys on the case include Harold J. McElhinny, Colette Reiner Mayer, Louise C. Stoupe, Kevin M. Coles, Pieter S. de Ganon, and Elizabeth Balassone of Morrison & Foerster LLP; Nora Preciado, Linton Joaquin, and Karen C. Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center; Mary Kenney, and Melissa Crow of the American Immigration Council; Travis Silva of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; and James Lyall and Dan Pochoda of ACLU of Arizona.

Additional links to the complaint, FAQ, fact sheet on FOIA data, and more are available at www.legalactioncenter.org/litigation/unconstitutional-conditions-cbp-detention-facilities-challenged-class-action-lawsuit.

# # #

Following Supreme Court Split, Immigrant Communities Vow to Keep Fighting for Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

Following Supreme Court Split, Immigrant Communities Vow to Keep Fighting for Families

WASHINGTON — Having reached an impasse, the U.S. Supreme Court has voted 4-4 in one of the most consequential immigration cases in recent history, United States v. Texas. The High Court’s failure to fall one way or another in the case leaves in place a lower court decision that blocks the Obama administration’s deferred action immigration initiatives known as DAPA and the expansion of DACA from being implemented.

Marielena Hincapie, executive director of National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The stakes in United States v. Texas could not have been higher: Millions have watched, and waited, for the Supreme Court to affirm the president’s authority to inject some common sense into our immigration system. Today, the eight justices failed to act, and countless families will suffer as a consequence. U.S. citizen children like Sophie Cruz will continue to live in daily fear that their mom or dad won’t be there one day to kiss them goodnight. And immigrant entrepreneurs like Cris Mercado won’t be able to reach their full potential.

“Immigrants and allies fought for and won these significant policy victories, which would have brought much-needed emotional and economic stability to millions of our community members, and we will not sit back. We urge the Department of Justice to seek a rehearing for when a ninth justice is confirmed for the Supreme Court. We will continue to fight back against anti-immigrant politicians, their allies, and their attacks on our families and communities. And we will explore all options to prevent more families from being torn apart.

“This politically driven lawsuit should never have made it this far: Two of the four Fifth Circuit judges who have considered the case noted rightly that Texas and other states simply did not have standing to bring it. Other state-driven anti-immigrant lawsuits were thrown out on the same grounds.

“With this case, the Court had an opportunity to provide clarity and guidance on executive power and to free up programs that would have tremendous social and economic benefits. Instead, they followed a troubling trend this term of failing to do the job the American people and the Constitution entrusted to them, due in part to the politicized vacancy on the Court.

“The stakes are now even greater for the November elections as the next president will have the opportunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices in their first term, shaping our country’s future for decades to come. Immigrant communities are committed to continuing our fight for our families.”

The Obama administration announced DAPA and the expansion of DACA in November 2014. The two initiatives would allow certain immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as other immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, to apply for temporary work authorization and protection from deportation.

Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government to block the administration’s initiatives in December 2014. In February 2015, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled in Texas’s favor and blocked both DAPA and the expansion of DACA. In a decision issued in November 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order. Today’s decision by a deadlocked High Court means the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction of the programs remains in place by default and that the case will be sent back to the lower courts for consideration—a prospect that worries many immigrants, given a recent extreme order by the federal district court in this case.

# # #

Judge Throws Out Attempt by Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149

Judge Throws Out Attempt by Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

DALLAS — A federal district court in Dallas today dismissed a Texas lawsuit, Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. United States, that sought to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state. U.S. District Judge David Godbey threw out Texas’s claims that the federal government and International Rescue Committee were not providing state agencies with enough information on who was being resettled. This latest court order underscores that Texas has no legal basis to attempt to block the resettlement there of refugees from any country.

The National Immigration Law Center has been proud to serve as counsel for the International Rescue Committee in the case, along with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the law firm of Susman Godfrey, LLP.

NILC staff attorney and counsel in the case, Nicholas Espiritu, issued the following statement:

“The federal district court was right to throw out this baseless case, which was nothing more than thinly veiled xenophobia and an intimidation tactic intended to improperly block the resettlement of refugees. Texas’s misguided lawsuit was not only wrong on the law, but stood in direct opposition to longstanding American values of welcoming and providing safe harbor to those fleeing persecution.

“Today’s decision clears the way for resettlement agencies and the many welcoming Texas communities who are doing the work to provide a home for people who are escaping horrible conditions.”

The court’s order is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TexasHHSC-v-US-granting-motion-to-dismiss-2016-06-15.pdf.

# # #