Author Archives: Richard Irwin

Colorado Supreme Court to Weigh Legality of Law Criminalizing Daily Interactions with Undocumented Immigrants

Download the Colorado Supreme Court’s
decision in this case, issued Oct. 10, 2017FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 3, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149, or
Adela de la Torre, [email protected], 202-385-1275

Colorado Supreme Court to Weigh Legality of Law Criminalizing Daily Interactions with Undocumented Immigrants

National Immigration Law Center to argue on behalf of petitioner

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a case that could determine the fate of the state’s unconstitutional law that criminalizes those who engage in daily interactions with undocumented immigrants. Seven justices will review an appellate court decision in Fuentes-Espinoza v. Colorado, which has brought into question whether the state statute is preempted by federal law.

National Immigration Law Center staff attorney Nicholas Espíritu will be among those to present arguments on behalf of Mr. Fuentes-Espinoza, a man who was prosecuted under the state statute.

“This unconstitutional law was the product of ill-intentioned efforts to force Colorado into the business of immigration enforcement,” Espíritu said. “The courts have made it clear that only the federal government has the power to criminalize and prosecute immigration-related offenses, and that states have no authority in this area. Beyond this law’s fatal legal flaws, it is also bad policy to turn cab drivers and other members of our communities into de facto immigration agents. Laws like this open up the door to discrimination and other unnecessary ills.”

Colorado’s law, passed in 2006, made it a felony to engage in a wide variety of activities with noncitizens who lack legal status. The law mirrors anti-immigrant statutes in seven states that have been enjoined or struck down by federal courts across the country in the past five years.

Just this month, a federal judge in Texas blocked a nearly identical provision in the state’s omnibus border-security bill, finding that the state has no authority to create its own immigration law, and upholding the longstanding principle that such authority is exclusively federal.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s sole jurisdiction over immigration matters in the 2012 case involving Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. In that case, the nation’s highest court made clear that the states have a very limited role in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and rejected key portions of the state law. The National Immigration Law Center filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court.

“It is troubling that Colorado continues to have this law on the books when so many others just like it—in Arizona, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas—have been declared unlawful,” said Julien Ross, executive director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. “Colorado has made great strides in the last decade to be a more welcoming and thriving state by repealing other anti-immigrant laws. Removing this remaining harmful law will further advance trust and dignity for all Coloradans.”

The National Immigration Law Center, Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, and South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in support of Fuentes-Espinoza in August 2014. The National Immigration Law Center has also been involved in fighting back similar anti-immigrant legislation in several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.

###

NOTE: The Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision in this case on Oct. 10, 2017. The advance sheet headnote included with the decision states:

This case requires the supreme court to determine whether Colorado’s human smuggling statute, section 18-13-128, C.R.S. (2017), is preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537 (2017) (“INA”). The supreme court concludes that the INA preempts section 18-13-128 under the doctrines of both field and conflict preemption [emphasis added].

15 Years After Coming to the U.S. Undocumented, I Became a Lawyer. This Week I Was in the Supreme Court

THE TORCH: CONTENTSBy Nora Preciado
APRIL 22, 2016

This week, I was fortunate enough to be inside the U.S. Supreme Court for the argument in the U.S. v Texas case challenging the president’s immigration relief initiatives, known as DAPA and the expansion of DACA. While I entered the courthouse as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, having practiced law for 10 years, this scene would’ve seemed but a dream not too long ago.

My parents brought me to Garden Grove, Calif., from Mexico undocumented when I was 13 years old. As a teenager, it was a tough transition being in an unfamiliar place and not knowing a word of English. But with my family’s support — and not without some setbacks — I was able to excel in school and embark in a rewarding career that led me to this surreal point: sitting right in front row, across from Justice Sonia Sotomayor and behind Attorney General Loretta Lynch, two women I deeply admire.

DAPA and the expansion of DACA would provide deportation relief and work authorization to certain young, undocumented people, as well as to certain parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Being inside the courtroom and watching attorneys expertly make the legal case for the administration’s initiatives, reminded me of the limitations my own immigration status imposed on me when I was growing up. Though I excelled in school and got an associate’s degree from a local community college, I could not transfer to one of the several California universities that accepted me because nonresident tuition was prohibitively expensive for my minimum wage–earning parents, who had three college-age children at the time.

I continued taking classes, obtained a second degree, and volunteered extensively at the community college for four more years, waiting for my immigration status to change. Finally, in 2000, I became a lawful permanent resident and was able to transfer to U.C. Davis to finish my degree, which in turn opened the door for me to attend U.C. Berkeley Law School.

I’ve always wanted to help people, such as my family, who could have avoided so many difficulties and heartache if we only had access to more information and resources — if we only understood the legal system better. Knowing that law is a powerful tool, I became a lawyer 15 years after arriving in the United States.

Monday was a full-circle-moment for me. I watched attorneys argue the law and knew that some of them had in mind the practical, real-life consequences of what was happening in that courtroom. I felt proud to be sitting there with some of the families whose lives will be impacted by this case.

If DAPA and the expansion of DACA are allowed to go into effect, families around the country will no longer have to live in fear of being separated. Not only that, but entire communities will benefit from increased tax revenue and newly authorized workers will no longer be subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Our whole country will reap the moral and financial benefits.

The most unforgettable part of Monday was coming out the front door of that magnificent Supreme Court building, walking down those marble steps alongside many of the amazing people who will benefit from DAPA and expanded DACA, and hearing the thousands of immigrant families outside chanting and clapping. I had to fight back tears as I descended those steps, looked out over that beautiful crowd, and felt its overwhelmingly positive energy.

I do not for a minute forget the sacrifices my family made to come to this country or the many years I spent undocumented and living in fear of being deported. I know how privileged I was to be there Monday and to walk among all those families fighting for the same thing my family wanted: a better life and an opportunity to thrive and give back.

New NILC Report Highlights Advances to Ensure Legal Representation for Detained Immigrants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 21, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 520-313-4921

New NILC Report Highlights Advances to Ensure Legal Representation for Detained Immigrants

LOS ANGELES — Imagine being locked up in jail and having to convince a judge to allow you to stay in the U.S. Losing your case will mean being separated, maybe for the rest of your life, from the people you love most. It may also mean being sent back to a place you fled because you were afraid of being harassed or assaulted or even murdered.

Then imagine that you’ll have to make your case on your own, without any help from someone who knows the law well. You can’t afford a lawyer, and the court can’t appoint one for you—even though the judge knows that having a lawyer while in jail would make it 10 times more likely that you would win your case.

When the stakes are this high, there’s no such thing, without competent legal representation, as a fair day in immigration court. Our latest special report, Blazing a Trail: The Fight for Right to Counsel in Detention and Beyond, makes a case for why a universal right to counsel for all immigrants in detention is a matter of fundamental fairness. Based on interviews with experts from around the country, it highlights the work of existing and emerging campaigns and working groups that have been catalysts for real progress toward securing a genuine right to counsel in immigration court, especially for people in detention. It also provides practical guidance for advocates seeking to build universal legal representation programs in their own communities.

Recently, a senior official within the immigration justice system—a longtime immigration judge who is responsible for training other judges—argued that even three-year-olds are capable of representing themselves competently in immigration court. Anyone who has spent ten minutes in any court knows how absurd such an assertion is. People with college educations who speak English fluently find immigration law baffling and the immigration justice system difficult to navigate without legal help. This difficulty is multiplied many times if you’re in immigration detention.

We trust you’ll find that this new report sheds light on the challenges—and available solutions—in addressing these gaps in accessing justice.

# # #

Thousands Rally in Front of Supreme Court to #FightforFamilies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 520-313-4921

Thousands Rally in Front of Supreme Court to #FightforFamilies

Supreme Court Justices Hear Oral Argument in United States v. Texas

WASHINGTON — One of the most consequential immigration cases in decades reached the highest court of the nation today. Supreme Court justices heard oral argument in the case, and thousands rallied in support of immigration initiatives designed to keep immigrant families from being torn apart.

Thousands of people from across the country took to the steps of the Supreme Court to show their support for the initiatives, known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which 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 work authorization and protection from deportation.

Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government in December 2014 to block these Obama administration executive actions. 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.

“Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made clear that DAPA and the expansion of DACA are on solid legal ground and well within the parameters of the president’s authority to set common-sense priorities in the execution of immigration law,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

“But in addition to hearing legal arguments for why the Supreme Court should uphold its legal precedent and reaffirm the president’s authority, the justices also faced perhaps one of the most diverse audiences the Supreme Court has ever had. Several individuals whose fate awaits the justices’ decision sat courageously across from them and listened to the arguments in support and against these immigration directives that would benefit them and the country.

“They represented families all over the country hoping to be spared from being torn apart from their loved ones. These are people who want to contribute more fully to their communities and provide a better life for their families. Mothers, fathers, and workers have fought hard to help bring our immigration policies in line with our nation’s values, and we should not let a politically driven lawsuit stymie these initiatives from moving forward.”

Economists and other experts agree that implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA would benefit the country as a whole, lifting wages and adding to tax coffers. Furthermore, dozens of law enforcement officials assert that implementing these initiatives would improve public safety by making immigrants more likely to come forward when they are victims of—or witnesses to—crime.

“When I watched the president’s speech on television announcing DAPA and the expansion of DACA, I thought I would finally be able to pursue my dream of becoming a lawyer and eventually a judge,” said Jong-Min You, who arrived in the United States as a toddler and missed the cutoff date for the original DACA initiative by one year. “I think the strategy of using the courts to continue to delay our civil rights has to end today. No more politics. This is our future we’re talking about.”

“With DAPA, I would no longer live in fear of deportation, and I would look be able to look for better work opportunities,” said Mercedes Garcia, a DAPA-eligible mother from Colorado. “It would mean so much, not just for me, but for my family.”

The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision on United States v. Texas by the end of June. If the initiatives are allowed to take effect, advocacy organizations are ready to assist with implementing them immediately.

The administration’s original DACA initiative, announced in June 2012, is still in effect and available to eligible applicants.

# # #

9th Circuit Reaffirms That Arizona May Not Deny Driver’s Licenses to DACAmented Youth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2016

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected], 213-375-3149
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU National, [email protected], 212-284-7347
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, [email protected], 602-773-6007

Federal Appeals Court Reaffirms Arizona May Not Deny Driver’s Licenses to DACAmented Youth

PASADENA, CA — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that permanently blocks Arizona from denying driver’s licenses to immigrants who have been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

“Yesterday’s ruling affirms once again that Arizona’s insistence on discriminating against its immigrant youth is not only morally abhorrent, it’s also illegal,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “The decision makes it clear that there is no conceivable justification for Arizona’s discriminatory effort to thwart its young immigrants from obtaining the driver’s licenses they need go to school and to work, and to provide for their families.”

Victor Viramontes, national senior counsel at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said, “Arizona continues to discriminate against the Latino immigrants that it should be embracing. Instead of choosing legitimate policies, Arizona insists on paying attorneys’ fees and wasting taxpayer monies on unconstitutional attacks directed at its own residents.”

The ruling in Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, a lawsuit filed in November 2012, follows a series of victories by young immigrants in the case. In early 2015, the federal district court in Arizona permanently blocked the ban on driver’s licenses for immigrant youth that was ordered by former Governor Jan Brewer in 2012. Prior to that, in July 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the policy was likely unconstitutional and that people with DACA—who have permission from the federal government to live and work in the U.S.—are seriously harmed by their inability to obtain driver’s licenses.

Jennifer Chang Newell, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “While Arizona has been stubbornly fighting this legal battle, these young people have been getting on with their lives, legally driving in all 50 states and contributing their talents to their communities across the country. It’s time for Arizona to move on as well.”

Arizona enacted this discriminatory policy in 2012, shortly after the Obama administration announced the creation of the DACA program. Arizona is the only state in the U.S. that has continued in its efforts to deny licenses to “DACAmented” youth, of whom there are roughly 26,000 in the state.

“In a strongly worded opinion, the unanimous panel found that the animus held by Arizona officials resulted in an illegal attempt to deny a basic need,” said Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona senior counsel. “It is past time to end the attempts to make immigrants’ lives unbearable, and the resulting damage to Arizona’s reputation and economy.”

Yesterday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit is available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/05/15-15307.pdf.

# # #

Ryan Amicus Brief Further Politicizes United States v. Texas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 2016

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

Ryan Amicus Brief Further Politicizes United States v. Texas

WASHINGTON — Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) yesterday filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of 26 states, led by Texas, that are challenging the Obama administration’s deferred action immigration initiatives in the case U.S. v Texas, which is now before the Supreme Court. The brief was filed only after Ryan staged an unprecedented vote authorizing the House of Representatives to submit the brief, despite the fact that more than 180 of his colleagues had already voiced their support for the administration’s immigration initiatives.

Noting the extraordinary nature of filing a friend-of-the-court brief, Ryan decries the president’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion even while he recognizes the executive branch’s authority “to decide how best to use its limited resources.” In a near party-line vote, the GOP-led House approved an unprecedented resolution to allow Ryan to file the brief with the Supreme Court.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement in response to the filing:

“The Ryan amicus brief further politicizes a case brought forward by disgruntled politicians looking to impose their own misguided immigration policy preferences through the courts. Ryan disingenuously purports to speak for all members of the U.S. House of Representatives, many of whom have already expressed their unwavering support for the Obama administration’s immigration policies.

“The administration’s immigration initiatives provide a much-needed temporary fix to our outdated immigration system and will allow American families to stay united while enhancing economic opportunities for all of us. Rather than continue trying to subvert the president’s common-sense immigration initiatives, Ryan should be working to build consensus for a permanent fix to the nation’s broken immigration system.”

# # #

Supreme Court Affirms That Everyone Counts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 4, 2016

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

Supreme Court Affirms That Everyone Counts

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Texas’ voting district apportioning system, ensuring that all people are counted for districting purposes regardless of their age or where they were born. In a unanimous decision, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that only those eligible to vote should be considered. Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center issued the following statement in response to the decision. The National Immigration Law Center joined a coalition of civil rights organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in support of Texas in Evenwel v. Abbott:

“The Supreme Court today issued a powerful reminder that our elected officials represent all of us, regardless of whether we can vote. This unanimous decision puts to rest claims by conservative ideologues’ years-long attack on the most vulnerable members of our community, all of whom deserve representation, even if they cannot vote for those who represent them.

“Today’s decision correctly recognizes that counting every person when apportioning comports with the democratic goals asserted in the constitution. This is a great victory for children too young to vote, immigrants who contribute to our communities but cannot join us in the voting booth, or those unfairly stripped of their voting rights, and will allow these individuals to have appropriate representation. One person, one vote is at the core of our democracy.”

###

Lawsuit Seeks to Force Kansas to Disclose about Discriminatory Treatment of Refugees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 31, 2016

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, [email protected], 213-400-7822

National Immigration Law Center Sues to Force Kansas to Disclose Information about Discriminatory Treatment of Refugees

LOS ANGELES — Kansas may not keep its unlawful discrimination against Syrian refugees a secret, according to a lawsuit filed by the National Immigration Law Center and co-counsel Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law, LLC, under the Kansas Open Records Act. The suit, filed after more than two months of requests and appeals, seeks to learn more about how officials are implementing Gov. Sam Brownback’s unconstitutional instruction to state agencies not to assist in the resettlement of certain individuals designated by the federal government as refugees.

Last November, Brownback issued an executive order instructing state officials to engage in discriminatory practices to make it difficult for Syrian refugees to begin new lives in Kansas. He has since issued a more ambiguous order that could have the same pernicious effect.

“Syrian refugees have fled unspeakable violence, undergone years of background checks, and want nothing more than to begin their lives anew in America,” said Melissa Keaney, attorney for the National Immigration Law Center. “Through his order, Governor Brownback may be pushing his state agencies to make their new lives in America even more difficult, if not impossible—and he has done so in secret. We filed this lawsuit today because the public has a right to know if the state is engaging in discriminatory, unconstitutional behavior.”

“Gov. Brownback’s latest executive order leaves out way more than it includes,” said Justin Cox, cooperating attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Nowhere does it explain the circumstances under which the state would conclude that a particular refugee is a security risk, who within the state would make that determination, or if it has already been made. For all that’s known publicly, Kansas could be barring refugees from the state solely because of their religion or country of birth.”

More than ten weeks ago, NILC requested information under the Kansas Open Records Act from the governor’s office and two agencies involved in administering federally funded benefits to refugees: the Kansas Department for Women and Children and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Under the law, state officials have three business days to act on a request for public records.

“This lawsuit demonstrates what is all too common: public officials routinely violate the Kansas Open Records Act, making a mockery of the law’s promise of governmental transparency,” said Rekha Sharma-Crawford, who is serving as co-counsel on the case. “Usually the public officials get away with ignoring the law, but not this time.”

NILC and Sharma-Crawford Attorneys hope that the lawsuit will compel the state to provide more information about how it is implementing the executive order in order to shine a public light on the state’s potentially unconstitutional, discriminatory actions.

The petition for declaratory and injunctive relief is available at www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NILC-v-Brownback-KORA-2016-03-30.pdf.

# # #

House of Representatives Further Politicizes Supreme Court Case on Immigration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 17, 2016

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre [email protected]; 213-400-7822

House of Representatives Further Politicizes Supreme Court Case on Immigration

WASHINGTON –The conservative-led House of Representatives upended regular order and pushed approval of a resolution authorizing the House to file an amicus brief opposing Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Texas. The House voted 234-180, mostly along party lines, to approve the order, sidestepping typical House protocol for approval of amici briefs.

The vote, which even House Speaker Paul Ryan described as “a very extraordinary step,” underscores how conservatives are using every possible venue, including the courts, to pursue their partisan, anti-immigrant agenda, which tears apart families in our communities.

The politically driven lawsuit challenging the president’s executive authority to set priorities on immigration law enforcement was filed by conservative-led states. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on April 18.

“The House of Representatives once again proved that United States v. Texas isn’t about policy, but about politics,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “Their actions fail to take into account that a wide, diverse swath of our country wants the court to allow these common-sense immigration measures to take effect. Last week, more than 200 of their colleagues in Congress, along with law enforcement leaders, state attorneys general, and myriad others filed briefs in the case affirming that support.

“Elected officials who oppose the president’s actions have an appropriate avenue to make their views known to the court: They can sign their names to an amicus brief in support of Texas. This resolution is completely unnecessary and, simply put, another crass example of scoring cheap political points off immigrant families.

“In this case, the law is clear: The president has full authority to manage immigration enforcement priorities. Speaker Ryan has just joined Texas and others in trying to push through the courts what they have failed to do through appropriate policy channels.”

###

NILC Urges Senate to Vote Quickly on Supreme Court Nominee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2016

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]

National Immigration Law Center Urges Senate to Vote Quickly on President’s Supreme Court Nominee

WASHINGTON — In response to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee announcement today, Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“The president has nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court today. Garland clearly possesses a sharp legal mind worthy of the highest court in the land. Many may be disappointed that President Obama did not use this opportunity to nominate a judge with a strong track record on progressive issues, or a judge who can add to diversity on a court that still fails to represent the richness we see in our communities. However, there is no doubt that Garland is extremely experienced, with a 19-year tenure at the DC Circuit Court. We firmly believe the Senate should move swiftly to confirm him. This isn’t about partisan politics; it’s about carrying out constitutional duty.

“There are millions of lives—including those of low-income immigrants and their families—across the country whose futures depend on the Supreme Court fully functioning, and they cannot wait another year. The nation relies on the highest court to fully review, consider, and judge the most important issues of our time, and as long as we have only eight justices on the bench, justice cannot be fully served.”

# # #