Immigration proved to comprise a significant part of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for the 2019 Term. Eight decisions directly or indirectly address immigration issues. The eight cases are a couple more than the Court's average number of immigration decisions in a Term.
by Kevin R. Johnson, Michael A. Olivas, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
The Supreme Court will soon release an opinion on the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s choice to end DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Few lawyers would accuse the Immigration and Nationality Act of being well drafted. The current law was enacted in 1952, but includes bits and pieces dating back to the founding era, along with major new features that are not always well integrated into the whole. In addition to evoking memories of a time when congressional relief for unauthorized migrants was more possible, United States v.
The Trump administration has implemented unprecedented immigration enforcement policies, prompting challenges from state governments, advocacy groups and the University of California.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases in which the University of California and others are challenging the Trump administration’s termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.
Earlier this week, the Milton L. Schwartz/David F. Levi Inn of Court held its first meeting of the academic year at UC Davis School of Law. Because the meeting was on the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, Judge Emily Vasquez asked me to offer some remarks on the impact of September 11 on the law. Here are my remarks:
The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in U.S. immigration detention.
The 1997 settlement established basic standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating immigration laws.
We cannot fully understand the treatment of immigrant detainees and the numerous lawsuits filed against ICE and the Trump Administration without attention to disability rights. Not only do these cases underscore the intersection of immigration and disability rights broadly, but, more concretely, they offer novel and underdeveloped remedial avenues rooted in disability law. Disability statutes, like the U.S. Constitution, apply to individuals in the United States irrespective of citizenship and immigration status.
What are the basic rules that determine how immigrant children are treated in U.S. immigration detention?
The Trump administration’s detention of migrant children in poor conditions along the U.S./Mexico border has repeatedly raised this question. The answer is a decades-old court case known as the Flores settlement. The settlement establishes the rules that the U.S. government must follow when it detains migrant children in enforcing immigration laws.
