Monday, July 7, 2025

Fifth Circuit Affirms Injunction of Texas SB 4

ACLU of Texas

Press release from the ACLU of Texas on a legal challenge to Texas SB 4:

"A federal appeals court upheld an injunction late Thursday night against Senate Bill 4 (88-4), endorsing a district court order that prohibits the anti-immigration law from being enforced in a major win for immigrant rights.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with every court to have examined such laws that federal law leaves no space for this type of state immigration statute: `For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of aliens — is exclusively a federal power.” S.B. 4’s provisions “rob every administration of the very discretion in alien removal matters that Congress granted to the federal executive and not to the States.'

The extreme Texas law criminalizes people who are undocumented from entering Texas from Mexico, attempting to wrest control of the immigration system from the federal government and allow local police officers to make arrests based on immigration status. It also purports to allow state officers to deport people.

Texas had argued that it should prevail because the federal government, which had originally sued, dropped its case earlier this year. But the court of appeals confirmed that the private plaintiffs have standing to sue, and that S.B. 4 is unconstitutional.

This decision extends a long and unbroken string of defeats that the courts have dealt to S.B. 4 and related laws in Florida, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Iowa. This includes appellate decisions from the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits.

The ruling affirms the injunction, keeping S.B. 4 blocked during the remainder of the litigation. Oral arguments were held in front of the Fifth Circuit on April 3, 2024. Originally, a federal court granted a motion for preliminary injunction in February 2024, which was subsequently appealed by the state of Texas."

Advocates have long warned that the law’s implementation would lead to racial profiling, family separation, and harm to Black and Brown communities across the state.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, Texas Civil Rights Project, and El Paso County filed the lawsuit, arguing that S.B. 4 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs are Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and El Paso County."

KJ

July 7, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Big Beautiful Bill Bolsters Immigration Enforcement Budget

45_donald_trump

President Trump signed the Big Beautiful Bill into law.  It puts big money -- $100 billion -- into immigration enforcement. Documented highlights news articles that describe the impacts of the budgetary allocation.

According to calculations by Mother Jones, the staggering allocation is: 568 times the cost to pay all U.S. students’ public school lunch debt; 140 times the cost to make New York City buses free; 12 times the 2023 Federal Bureau of Prisons budget; 7 times the 2021 federal child care funding; and 4.4 times what the US has spent on Israel’s military since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. 

NPR reports that the bill shifts resources from the social safety net and investments in clean energy, and reorients them to tax cuts, immigration enforcement and national defense.

The New Republic observes that it is impossible to overstate how much power ICE just got from Trump’s budget. 

KJ

July 7, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Commentary: US immigration shift may have profound economic consequences

Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab, writes that "[a]s deportations increase and pathways for new entrants narrow, employers may face heightened difficulty filling positions. This labour scarcity is likely to contribute to wage inflation in lower-skilled service roles; which although beneficial for many workers, also pressures profit margins and contributes to broader inflationary trends."

KJ

July 7, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 6, 2025

Empty Shelters Show Fallacy of Mass Deportations

WaPo is on fire with its immigration coverage today. Check out this article about how Mexican shelters prepared for the Trump Administration's announced mass deportations, but they haven't seen mass arrivals of deportees. 

That said, the paper acknowledges there is a big "yet" pending. Deportation numbers are picking up, they report, and the Big Beautiful Bill may drive them higher.

-KitJ

July 6, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

WaPo: Russia's "anti-woke" visa

WaPo reports that some U.S. conservatives are so fed-up with the Leftist Agenda that they're seeking a new life in a new country that's devoted to more "traditional, conservative values": Russia.  

These U.S. émigrés--"moral migrants"--are receiving asylum visas from Russia, giving them the right to live and work in that nation.

WaPo quotes one such man as saying: "I want to thank President [Vladimir] Putin for allowing Russia to become a good place for families in this world climate.”  

-KitJ

 

 

July 6, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 4, 2025

French Mural: "The Statue of Liberty's Silent Protest"

-KitJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Salvadoran President Bukele denies beating and torture of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The Associated Press reports that El Salvador President Nayib Bukele denied allegations that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was beaten and subject to psychological torture in a Salvadoran prison.  In a post on the social media platform X, Bukele wrote that Abrego Garcia “wasn’t tortured, nor did he lose weight.” The post included pictures and video of Abrego Garcia in a detention cell.

Abrego Garcia said he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture in the Salvadoran prison the Trump administration had deported him to in March.

 

KJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Happy Independence Day!

 

Happy July 4.  As is traditionally the case, US Citizenship and Immigration Services is celebrating the holiday with naturalization ceremonies:

"USCIS Celebrates Independence Day 2025 Welcoming Those Who Earned Citizenship the Right Way

 WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is celebrating Independence Day by welcoming new citizens in naturalization ceremonies throughout the country. These ceremonies demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the naturalization process promotes a unified American identity and allegiance to the Constitution, laws, and founding principles of the United States. 

...

Every July 4, USCIS celebrates the day the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776, declaring the 13 colonies free of tyranny and establishing a new nation. USCIS proudly honors America’s birthday with a longstanding tradition of welcoming new citizens in special Independence Day-themed naturalization ceremonies for those who have lawfully earned the privilege of citizenship.

This year’s Independence Day activities include naturalization ceremonies across the country and the newly released Welcome message from President’s Donald J. Trump video. On July 4, USCIS Chief of Staff Aaron Calkins will call the countries and present the candidates to DHS Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar, who will administer the Oath of Allegiance and deliver congratulatory remarks to 100 new Americans at George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Nearby at Fort Monroe National Monument, the Honorable Glenn A. Youngkin, governor of Virginia and the Honorable Jason S. Miyares, attorney general of Virginia, will deliver remarks at another naturalization ceremony. Additional Independence Day ceremonies will be held across the country, including Saguaro National Park in Arizona, the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Texas, and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in Virginia.  

...."

KJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supreme Court allows Trump to deport migrants held in Djibouti to South Sudan

Supreme Court of the United States

CNN reports that "[t]he Supreme Court [yesterday] cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport to South Sudan a group of migrants that have been held for weeks on a military base in Djibouti."  Here is the Court's order, which reinforces a previous order.

KJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

OpEd: Forced Disappearances In New Mexico 2025

Photo:  Jennifer Moore

Professor Jennifer Moore, New Mexico Senator Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez, and Representative Linda Serrato in this op/ed state that "New Mexicans detained by law enforcement, with no accounting of their identity or plight, are victims of an enforced disappearance under international human rights treaties and laws to which the U.S. is a signatory.

Immigration raids and unaccounted-for seizures of human beings are occurring in New Mexico and throughout the country, with increases in their frequency and magnitude as of June 2025. How many additional individuals have been taken into immigration custody, based on their suspected undocumented status, whose fates remain unknown?"

KJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Associated Press: Mexican boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. arrested by ICE for deportation, federal officials say

 

The Associated Press reports that U.S. officials have announced that Mexican boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. has been arrested for overstaying his visa and lying on a green card application and will be deported to Mexico, where he faces organized crime charges.  The arrest came days after the former champion lost a fight against Jake Paul in California.

 

KJ

July 4, 2025 in Current Affairs, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 2, 2025

Court blocks Trump administration's barring asylum seekers at U.S./Mexico border

CNN reports that a federal judge blocked a Trump administration policy barring migrants who cross the U.S./Mexico border from seeking asylum. In a ruling issued today, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that the administration overstepped its authority by bypassing immigration law.  The order begins as follows:

"On January 20, 2025, the President issued a proclamation declaring that `the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion' because `the sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system' and is `prevent[ing] the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.' . . . The Proclamation, in effect, prevents anyone who crosses the southern border of the United States at any place other than a designated port of entry, as well as anyone who enters anywhere else (including at a designated port of entry) without a visa or without extensive medical information, criminal history records, and other background records, from applying for asylum or withholding of removal. On Defendants’ telling, this dramatic step was necessary to restore order to an immigration system that has become overrun by those who enter the United States without authorization and then seek to stay here by applying for asylum or withholding of removal. On Plaintiffs’ telling, in contrast, the Proclamation and implementing guidance ignore the governing statutes and regulations and purport to rely on statutory and constitutional provisions that neither contemplate nor permit such a wholesale rewriting of the Nation’s immigration laws."

Here is the ACLU Texas press release:

A federal court today blocked President Trump’s proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border.

The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which provide legal services to asylum seekers, and a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation.

The court rejected the administration’s efforts to use the “212(f)” proclamation, which falsely cited an “invasion” as justification to deny asylum protections expressly granted by Congress and summarily deport families and individuals to countries where they are at grave risk of persecution with no recourse.

The groups successfully argued that Trump’s action ignored protections put in place by Congress (and backed by the courts for generations) that ensure people have the opportunity to have their asylum claims heard. This proclamation is even more extreme than Trump’s previous attempts to shut off asylum in his first administration, as this move leaves no avenue open for people to seek asylum.

“This is a hugely important decision. Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country’s separation of powers,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case.

“The court rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to upend our asylum system in a key ruling for our nation. This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director for the ACLU of Texas.

“We are grateful that the federal courts continue to agree with us that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental protection provided by Congress and ingrained in U.S. law for decades. No president has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety. The courts have repeatedly sided with us on this issue, and we will continue to fight cruel policies, under any administration, that harm individuals and families who flee persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

“This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law. It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence. The court’s blocking of the Trump administration’s executive action underscores the inhumane and unlawful nature of this policy and strengthens our call to protect the right to seek asylum. The Texas Civil Rights Project will continue fighting for the rights of those seeking safety at our border,” said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

“We are grateful that today the court refused to accept the administration’s reckless disregard for the legal right to seek asylum. Every day that the United States fails to uphold its asylum process puts women, children, and families fleeing violence at risk of exploitation and serious harm,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.

“We are pleased that the court has ruled in favor of people seeking protection at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Trump administration’s invocation of a 212(f) proclamation to block all access to asylum is blatantly xenophobic. Both U.S. and international law are clear — people have the right to seek protection at the border. We are grateful that the court has recognized this right and demand that the Trump administration comply and restart processing at the border immediately,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.

“As the court rightly affirmed today, the Trump administration cannot rewrite our immigration laws and invent its own extra-statutory system to block people from exercising their rights. Under our laws, any person seeking safety at our southern border has a legal right to apply for asylum. The government cannot wield racist, baseless claims of an ‘invasion’ to demonize refugees and unilaterally strip them of that right. For over six months, the illegal border proclamation has wrought nothing but suffering and chaos, forcing people fleeing persecution back to peril and leaving others stuck in detention, struggling to navigate a made-up process. The administration should now comply with the court’s order and immediately reinstate a fair asylum process at the southern border," said Edith Sangüeza, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.

“Today’s ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration’s sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our Constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy. The Trump administration's prerogative is once again found to be unlawful. It is increasingly clear where the illegality lies, and it is not with the immigrant families upon whom this administration is inflicting unfathomable harm,” said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at RAICES.

“Federal law unequivocally guarantees the right of refugees to seek asylum and the right not to be returned to face torture. President Trump’s attempt to eliminate these life-or-death rights with the swipe of a pen and under false pretenses had no legal basis, as the court today made clear,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

The ruling is here.

*****

The Trump administration reportedly was not keen on the court ruling.

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Human Impacts of the Mass Deportation Campaign

Home

I long have been troubled by the human impacts of the recent immigration enforcement operations.  It has struck home as the Trump administration has recently made Los Angeles, my hometown, the epicenter of its enforcement operations.  

This Associated Press story by Jaimie Ding ("A day outside an LA detention center shows profound impact of ICE raids on families") "shows the profound personal impact of the federal government’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Many U.S.-born children and family members hoping to see their detained loved one are turned away with no news, not even confirmation that the person is inside."

In these trying times, it was uplifting to attend the 2025 Mariachi Festival at the Hollywood Bowl last weekend.  Below is a video of fireworks from the 2024 Festival.  In these times, it was uplifting to see so many Latinos peacefully celebrating life , culture, and community.

 

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lawsuit against DHS over 'unlawful' immigration raids

ACLU of Southern California

The City of Los Angeles has been in the immigration news. Yesterday, the Trump administration sued Los Angeles over its sanctuary policies.   Here is the latest.   

The ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel today announced a class action against the U.S. government over "unlawful, immoral and unconstitutional" immigration raids across Southern California.   Here is the Complaint.  Download 2025.07.02 - Lawsuit filed by ACLU and other public interest organizations v. Trump Administration re ICE Raids (1).  Here is the ACLU-SC press release.

Filed in the Central District of California, the class action covers Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura.   As reported by Fox11 LA, "[a] coalition of Southern California residents, workers, and advocacy groups has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), alleging unlawful stop and arrest practices, as well as illegal confinement conditions and denial of attorney access. . . .  The plaintiffs claim that DHS is unconstitutionally detaining individuals to meet arbitrary arrest quotas, primarily targeting `brown communities' and essential workers."
 
The Complaint alleges that noncitizens are detained in downtown Los Angeles in "B-18," with inadequate facilities, food, water, and access to counsel.
 
KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Big Beautiful Bill Would Bolster ICE Budget

45_donald_trump

Official White House Photo

The so-called Big Beautiful Bill is dominating the news cycle.  Rebecca Schneid for Time reports that "Republican leaders in the House are set to vote . . . on [the bill], which would significantly increase funding for federal immigration enforcement . . . . ICE’s current annual budget is around $10 billion. Under the version of the bill that passed the Senate, the agency would receive an infusion of more than $100 billion through 2029: $45 billion for detention facilities, $46 billion for border wall operations in the U.S.-Mexico border and $14 billion for deportation operations."

The story reports that ICE "currently has about 6,000 deportation officers" and would receive funding under the bill "to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029."

UPDATE (July 4):  Juliana Kim for NPR on "How Trump's tax cut and policy bill aims to 'supercharge' immigration enforcement"

KJ

 

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Court blocks Trump administration from quickly ending TPS for Haitians

Caption: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Official Portrait (DHS photo by Tia Dufour)

Official DHS Photo

Rebecca Beitsch for The Hill reports that a federal court has enjoined the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians before the date set by the Biden administration.  The ruling rejects Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's efforts to quickly end TPS for Haitians.  U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan ruled Noem could not issue a “partial vacatur” of a decision by her predecessor that gave Haitians TPS until February 2026.

Fox News includes a copy of the order in a story on the court's ruling.

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Associated Press: What the Justice Department’s push to bring denaturalization cases means

U.S. Department of Justice seal

As blogged about here, the Department of Justice has made denaturalizations a priority.  Alanna Dirkin Richer for the Associated Press describes what this means:

 "The Justice Department is ramping up its plans to revoke the citizenship of immigrants who’ve committed crimes or pose a national security risk, according to a recent memo underscoring the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda. . . . [T]he public push is raising concerns from advocates, who have accused the administration of trying to use immigration enforcement for political purposes. It’s receiving increased scrutiny after a Republican member of Congress suggested that Zohran Mamdani, the New York City Democratic mayoral candidate, should be subject to denaturalization proceedings."

 

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

President Trump speaks at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ in Florida Everglades

 

President Donald Trump visited the Florida Everglades to tour the new immigration detention facility, dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz."  He held a roundtable with Governor Ron DeSantis and other officials.

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Immigration in the Supreme Court, 2024 Term

 

The Supreme Court as composed October 27, 2020 to present

Photo courtesy of the Supreme Court website The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present.

Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.   Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

In the 2023 Term, the Supreme Court decided three immigration decisions.  The decisions included ones reaffirming the doctrine of consular nonreviewability (Department of State v. Muñoz) and marking the end of Chevron deference (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo), which had required the courts to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretations of ambiguous provisions of the immigration statute.
 
In the 2024 Term, the Court delivered several important immigration decisions.  With an immigration agenda zealously pursued like no other modern President, Donald Trump in less than six months had four major immigration cases.  Some of the cases came through the Supreme Court's emergency docket because the administration had moved with lightning speed and, in some instances, abandoned any semblance of due process in seeking removal of noncitizens from the country.  The Court in the 2024 Term also saw several routine immigration cases. 
 
The Court in the 2024 Term issued a total of seven immigration decisions.  This does not include immigration matters on the emergency docket that did not result in opinions.  The results were mixed, with some pro-noncitizen, others pro-government.  Some are difficult to categorize.  The Executive Branch will no doubt savor the limits imposed by the Court on district courts in issuing nationwide injunctions, which was announced in the birthright citizenship case (Trump v. CASA, Inc.).  I take solace in the fact that birthright citizenship was not questioned by any justice in that case.

Dutifully applying precedent, the Court in three immigration decisions informed the Trump administration that noncitizens, including undocumented migrants, have the right to Due Process before they are removed from the United States.  The question remains, however, whether the Court will be able to ensure that the administration fully complies with its rulings.  

1.  Wrongful Deportation:  Noem v. Abrego Garcia (April 10, 2025) 

In March 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Abrego Garcia without a hearing from the United States to El Salvador.  Several years ago, an immigration court had found that Abrego could not be removed there because his life or liberty would be at risk.  The U.S. government initially admitted that his removal and incarceration in a maximum security Salvadoran prison was an “administrative error.”  The administration later insisted that Abrego should have been removed from the country because he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which President Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.  Denying any gang affiliation, Abrego had lived in the United States with his family, including a developmentally disabled child, for a decade and had never been charged with a crime (although he apparently had some run-ins with the law).  

In reviewing his wrongful removal from the United States, the Supreme Court in Noem v. Abrego Garcia found that the lower court order “properly requires the Government to `facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador . . . . ”  However, the Court also concluded that the district court’s requirement that the administration “effectuate” his return may have exceeded the court’s authority.  The Court directed the district court to “clarify” its order “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”  The Court observed that, “[f]or its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”

In a separate "statement" in the case, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote that “[i]n the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.” 

Despite the Court’s ruling, Abrego remained in El Salvador until early June.  The administration stated that, as a criminal, he was rightfully removed from the country.  It further alleged that the Salvadoran government would not return him, which strained credulity given that the U.S. government paid that same government to imprison Abrego.  

In June, Abrego was returned to the United States and indicted on human smuggling charges based on conduct that allegedly took place in 2022.  A chief prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office stepped down after the indictment.  In considering bail on the charges, a magistrate judge found that there was no evidence that Abrego was a MS-13 member or a criminal.  Nonetheless, Abrego, as of July 2, remains in U.S. custody.

2.  Due Process for Migrants Before Removal:  Trump v. J.G.G (April 7, 2025) (per curiam)

In Trump v. J.G.G., the Supreme Court addressed challenges to the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals alleged by the Trump administration to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a gang that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.  The President issued a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to detain and summarily remove (i.e., remove without a hearing) Venezuelan gang members.

A class sought to halt their removal under the Proclamation.  Lower courts enjoined the Trump administration from removing the class of detainees.  Limiting the federal court’s power to issue injunctive relief, the Supreme Court held that challenges to removals under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in individual habeas corpus proceedings in the court with jurisdiction over where the noncitizen is detained.  The Court held that, because the detainees were being held in Texas, venue was improper in the District of Columbia where the case was brought.

Importantly, the Court further acknowledged that   

"[i]t is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. [citation omitted].  So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard `appropriate to the nature of the case.' [citation omitted]. . . . [The] detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.  The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs."

The Court made it clear that noncitizens who the U.S. government seeks to remove from the country have Due Process rights to reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard in a removal hearing before a judge.  Hearings are designed to avoid wrongful deportations like that suffered by Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson (and Justice Barrett in part), objected to the Court limiting detainees to habeas corpus relief and handling the case on the Court’s emergency docket, with limited briefing and no oral argument.  She also observed that “[t]his case arises out of the President’s unprecedented peacetime invocation of a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. . . . Before today, U.S. Presidents have invoked the Alien Enemies Act only three times, each in the context of an ongoing war:  the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.” (bold added) (footnotes omitted).

 3. More Due Process Before Removal:  A.A.R.P. v. Trump (May 16, 2025) (per curiam)

In this decision, the Supreme Court, with Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissenting, again was required to halt the Trump administration’s efforts to remove without a hearing Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA).  In so doing, the Court wrote:

"[I]n J.G.G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that `AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ' before removal.  [citation omitted].  In order to `actually seek habeas relief,' a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief."

As for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the Court wrote that "notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."  The holding seems right to me.

In short, the Supreme Court twice has rejected the Trump administration’s efforts at summary removal of noncitizens under the Alien Enemies Act.  However, the administration continues to push for the removal of migrants without due process.  

4.  Birthright Citizenship/Nationwide Injunctions

The birthright citizenship case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. attracted considerable attention. 

The Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .  .  .  .”  The language “subject to the jurisdiction” conventionally has been considered to apply to foreign diplomats, who are generally immune from U.S. laws even when present on U.S. territory.  One of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Citizenship Clause rejected the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied U.S. citizenship to freed slaves and contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War. 

In 1898, the Supreme Court held that that the Citizenship Clause “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.”  United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).   The Court rejected the U.S. government’s argument that that a man born in the United States was not a U.S. citizen because his parents were citizens of China.  Before and after the decision, courts generally recognized citizenship for all persons born on United States soil -- whatever the citizenship status of their parents.  Wong Kim Ark is part of an unbroken line of precedent recognizing birthright citizenship.  For an excellent summary of the history of the birthright citizenship clause, see Testimony of Professor Amanda Frost on Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (2025).

President Trump long has criticized birthright citizenship and verbally attacked "anchor babies," his disparaging phrase for children born to undocumented immigrants who are afforded U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  On January 20, 2025, he issued an executive order entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”  Section 2(b)of the order is a frontal assault on birthright citizenship:

"[T]he United States government shall [not] issue documents recognizing United States citizenship . . . to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."

The Executive Order would bar citizenship to persons born in the United States to undocumented parents as well as ones lawfully in the U.S. on a temporary (student, tourist, business, etc.) visa.  In three cases, lower courts granted nationwide injunctions barring the President from eliminating birthright citizenship.   The Court granted review on the question whether federal courts had the power to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions, which enjoin a president’s actions across the entire nation.   

At oral argument, the Justices focused on whether the lower courts have the power to bar on a nationwide basis implementation of President Trump’s executive orderNo Justice questioned the settled law about birthright citizenship.  In fact, during oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor highlighted several times that the executive order conflicted with three Supreme Court decisions and an act of Congress.  In the various opinions in the case, no Justice suggested that birthright citizenship could be abrogated in whole or in part through executive order.

The Justices grappled at oral arguments with balancing the (1) desire to efficiently and quickly halt the implementation of an unconstitutional executive action; with (2) restricting to a certain degree the federal judicial power to enter nationwide injunctions.  The Justices did not seem overly hostile to nationwide injunctions, but then again, this is a case with a clearly unconstitutional executive order – the strongest case for a nationwide injunction.  Moreover, the executive order, if implemented, could affect the citizenship of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of residents.

The Court issued a decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc.   As Amy Howe for SCOUTSBlog.com summarized,"[b]y a vote of 6-3, the justices repudiated the concept of universal or nationwide injunctions . . . .  The justices did not, however, weigh in on the question at the center of the three lawsuits before the court:  whether the birthright citizenship order itself is constitutional." (bold added).

Justice Barrett wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh each wrote separate concurrences. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson both wrote dissents.

The opening paragraph of the majority opinion states: 

Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.  These injunctions—known as “universal injunctions”—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.  We therefore grant the Government’s applications to partially stay the injunctions entered below.

At page 24 of the opinion, the majority writes that "the birthright citizenship issue is not before us." 

In III. A., the Court writes that "[a] universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power."  As Kit Johnson blogged,

"[t]he majority places great weight on the decision of Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 319 (1999) and its holding that Congress has only granted district court the authority to exercise the equitable authority `traditionally accorded by courts of equity' at our country’s inception.  And so the Court moves into a history lesson where it concludes `Neither the universal injunction nor any analogous form of relief was available in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the founding.'   The sentiment is repeated:  `Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them.'"

In conclusion, the Court states that 

"The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."  (bold added).

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote a forceful dissent:

"No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.  Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.  The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.  That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.  Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Justice Jackson dissents even more forcefully:

"I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent.  I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point:  The
Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law." (bold added).

The White House declared that the decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. was "A BIG WIN".  The decision restricts the power and authority of the lower federal courts and will have ripple effects on cases far beyond immigration law.  Steve Vladeck, Harold Koh, and Eric Berger analyze the decision.    

5.  Judicial Review of Visa Revocations:  Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (2024)

In this case, the Court addressed the judicial review of the revocation of an approved visa petition under the immigration statute based on a determination that the noncitizen had entered into a sham marriage.  In an opinion by Justice Jackson, the Court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.  The Court held that the discretionary judgment by the Secretary of Homeland Security is precisely the kind of discretionary decision that the immigration statute bars from review by the federal courts. 

6.  Time Deadlines and Weekends/Holidays:  Velazquez v. Garland (2025)

In Velazquez v. Garland, the Court held that, under the immigration statute, a voluntary departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.  The Court in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch reversed a lower court ruling to the contrary.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined, and in which Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett partially joined.  Justices Alito and Barrett filed dissenting opinions, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined.

7.  Time for Filing Appeal:  Riley v. Bondi (2025)
 
The question presented in this case was whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
 
In Riley v. Bondi, Justice Alito wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas Kavanaugh, and BarrettJustices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, joined Part II.B. of the opinion.  As SCOTUSBlog summarizes the case,
 
"the court considered whether and when a noncitizen who overstayed his visa and is subject to a deportation order can challenge an order denying his request for withholding of removal – a remedy that prevents him from being deported to his home country . . . . The case centered on Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen who overstayed his visa in the U.S. and did not challenge his final order of removal within the 30-day deadline to do so because he was waiting on word about a separate order on withholding, or relief from, removal. 

In a 5-4 decision by [Justice] Alito, the court held that the latter order is not the same as a final order of removal. `[T]he statutory text and our precedents make clear that … withholding-only proceedings do not disturb the finality of an otherwise final order of removal,' Alito wrote. The court also held that the lower court can reconsider the case because the 30-day filing deadline to challenge a final order `is not jurisdictional' – that is, it can be waived or forfeited." 

Part II.A. of the opinion concerns Immigration and Nationality Act § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), which states that judicial review of a final order of removal "must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." Riley sought judicial review of the BIA's order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief and not his earlier removal order.  The Court determined that the BIA's denial of CAT relief was not a "final order of removal."

As Kit Johnson blogged, "Section II-B of the opinion (with 9 justices agreeing to it) concludes that the 30-day filing deadline is not a jurisdictional rule but a `claim-processing rule.' Thus, the Fourth Circuit could reach the decision as to whether the BIA correctly concluded that Riley was ineligible for CAT relief." 

Conclusion

The 2024 Supreme Court Term saw immigration fireworks.  Replete with harsh rhetoric, the Trump administration brought more immigration cases to the Court in the first six months of Trump 2.0 than ordinarily is the case for the entire Term.  Besides the ones discussed above, the Court on May 30 stayed a lower court injunction, clearing the way for the administration to end temporary relief for removal to more than a half million migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The Court order stayed an injunction that barred the Trump administration from lifting the relief.  Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented from the grant of the stay.

In an immigration adjacent case, Amy Howe for SCOTUSBlog reported that the Supreme Court granted review in The GEO Group v. Menocal, which allows the Court "to decide whether a government contractor’s claim that it is entitled to sovereign immunity for work that it did on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement falls within what is known as the collateral order doctrine.  Normally, courts of appeals can only hear appeals from final decisions by district courts.  But under the collateral order doctrine, courts of appeals also have the power to rule on appeals from a narrow category of orders that do not end the litigation – for example, orders denying claims of qualified or absolute immunity."

While the U.S. government prevailed in some cases, the Supreme Court at times in the 2024 Term was willing to blunt President Trump’s more extreme immigration actions and ensure compliance with Due Process.  However, enforcement of the Courts orders have to this point been easier said than done.  It appears that while the Court is responding (as it should) with a judicious approach, the President Trump embraces a scorched earth war on immigration law.

KJ

July 2, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

What Americans think about President Trump’s deportations right now

45_donald_trump

Official White House Photo

A majority of Americans say actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have “gone too far,” according to a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.  More than half of U.S. adults — 54% — described ICE’s actions as having “gone too far.” Another 18% percent said the agency has not gone far enough, while 26% said they’d describe ICE’s actions as “about right.”

KJ

July 1, 2025 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)