Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

When a stay has been issued, an immigrant is not held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a) because he is not in the "removal period" contemplated by statute until his appeal is resolved by this court. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's determination that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. 1231, holding that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). In light of the uncertainty surrounding this area of detention after the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), the court remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the habeas petition under the correct statutory provision. View "Hechavarria v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion in order to eliminate reference to United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), given that decision's abrogation by the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).The court upheld Senate Bill 4 (SB4), a Texas law that forbids "sanctuary city" policies throughout the state, and held that SB4's provisions, with one exception, did not violate the Constitution. The court held that none of SB4's provisions conflict with federal law where the assistance-cooperation, the status-inquiry, and the information-sharing provisions were not conflict preempted. The court affirmed the district court's injunction against enforcement of Section 752.053(a)(1) only as it prohibits elected officials from "endors[ing] a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violated the Fourth Amendment; the "materially limits" phrase had a clear core and was not void for vagueness; and plaintiffs' "commandeering" argument failed. Accordingly, the court vacated in large part the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the vacated provisions. View "City of El Cenizo v. Texas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit upheld Senate Bill 4 (SB4), a Texas law that forbids "sanctuary city" policies throughout the state, and held that SB4's provisions, with one exception, did not violate the Constitution. The court held that none of SB4's provisions conflict with federal law where the assistance-cooperation, the status-inquiry, and the information-sharing provisions were not conflict preempted. The court affirmed the district court's injunction against enforcement of Section 752.053(a)(1) only as it prohibits elected officials from "endors[ing] a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violated the Fourth Amendment; the "materially limits" phrase had a clear core and was not void for vagueness; and plaintiffs' "commandeering" argument failed. Accordingly, the court vacated in large part the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the vacated provisions. View "City of El Cenizo v. Texas" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew the previous published opinion, and substituted this opinion. The court denied the petition for review of the BIA's order affirming petitioner's removal from the United States. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) did not discriminate based on gender where, had the situation been reversed, if petitioner's mother had become a lawful permanent resident, was naturalized, and raised him in the United States while his father remained in Jamaica, he still would not have derived citizenship because his parents never legally separated. The court also held that section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally discriminate based on legitimacy and, in the alternative, assuming without deciding that section 1432(a)(3)'s distinction based on marital choice was a legitimacy based classification, the statute passed constitutional muster. The court agreed with its sister circuits that section 1432(a) was substantially related to protecting parental rights. Finally, section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally burden petitioner's fundamental right to maintain a family unit. View "Levy v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit amended an opinion affirming the district court's judgment denying a habeas corpus petition where petitioner sought a custody redetermination as he awaited the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that reinstated removal orders were administratively final for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal orders was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing. View "Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible" on Justia Law

President Trump's issuance of Proclamation 9645 entitled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats" violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and exceeded the scope of his delegated authority. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation's section 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h), holding that the Government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) not only upended the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviated from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well; the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be detrimental to the interests of the United States; the Proclamation conflicted with the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas; and the President was without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation. However, the panel limited the scope of the preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. View "Hawaii v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The detainees alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied precedent such that neither side has shown that the limited preliminary injunction was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. In this case, the district court properly read and applied Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The panel also held that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in issuing only a limited preliminary injunction. View "Doe v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction for a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). In this case, the government has already determined that the class members were neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond. Nonetheless, the class members remain detained because they are unable to afford bond in the amount set by the immigration officials. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim. The panel reasoned that the government's current policies failed to provide adequate procedural protections to ensure that detention of the class members was reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. The panel concluded that due process likely requires immigration officials when considering bond determinations to consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Furthermore, plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of the equities favored plaintiffs; and the public interest benefited from the injunction. View "Hernandez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Organizations that represent migrant farm-workers claimed that the U.S. Border Patrol allows agents at its Sandusky Bay, Ohio station to target persons of Hispanic appearance for questioning. The district court found that the Plaintiffs had not proved their claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Border Patrol trains its agents to follow the official policy, to avoid racial profiling and the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a ratification-based policy of racial targeting at Sandusky Bay. The plaintiffs’ analysis of statistical information to show that agents from Sandusky Bay were targeting persons of Hispanic appearance was unreliable. View "Muniz-Muniz v. United States Border Patrol" on Justia Law

After USCIS discovered that an employee had illegally issued nearly 200 certificates of naturalization to individuals who had not satisfied the requirements to become U.S. citizens, the government canceled certificates of naturalization to individuals, including plaintiffs here, without seeking a court order. The State Department then administratively revoked or refused to renew their passports. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that the government's revocations of their certificates of naturalization and their passports violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process because they took place through administrative rather than judicial process; affirmed the dismissal of their claims of ethnicity or national origin discrimination; and reversed insofar as the district court held that any plaintiff was barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies from challenging under the Administrative Procedure Act the government's failure to afford plaintiffs the review the law requires, and pursuing 8 U.S.C. 1503 claims in the correct venues. Accordingly, the court remanded in part. View "Xia v. Tillerson" on Justia Law