After Attorney General Jeff Sessions removed an immigration judge from a case and reassigned the case to himself and then to another judge who consequently ordered the individual to be removed (i.e., deported), immigration judges and advocates have voiced their protest. The case involved Judge Steven Morley of Philadelphia who used “administrative closure” to suspend a case when a man named Reynaldo Castro-Tum failed to appear before him in immigration court. Administrative closure is used, for example, when the individual couldn’t make it to court for logistical reasons, including the summons being sent to the wrong address. Sessions responded by assigning the case to himself, issuing a decision that severely restricts the use of administrative closure, and instructed Morely to deport the individual if he didn’t show up again.
Read moreThe Washington Post: “Federal Judge: Trump administration must accept new DACA applications”
A federal judge in Washington D.C. has ordered the government to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and allow new applicants to apply, calling the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the program for the hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children “virtually unexplained” and “unlawful." In his decision, US District Judge John D. Bates writes that the Trump administration's decision “was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful" and that "each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action.” Even so, Judge Bates has stayed his ruling for ninety days to give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) time to provide a more detailed reason for ending the program; otherwise, the judge will rescind the memo that ended the DACA program and allow for new applicants.
Read moreThe Washington Post: “Justice Dept. to halt legal-advice program for immigrants in detention”
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that adjudicates immigration cases and oversees the country’s immigration court system, has announced its intention to halt the Vera Institute of Justice’s Legal Orientation Program (LOP) while it audits the program’s cost-effectiveness. Vera’s LOP program offers legal educational services to detained immigrants. During the audit, the Trump administration will also evaluate the Vera Institute’s information “help desk,” which provides tips to immigrants who are not detained but still facing deportation. This announcement comes as DOJ attempts to deal with the massive backlog of approximately 650,000 immigration court cases by 2020. Earlier this month, the DOJ announced case quotas for immigration judges.
Read moreBusiness Insider: "A judge permanently blocked Trump's order that threatened federal grants to 'sanctuary cities'"
Last week, Judge William Orrick, a federal district judge for Northern California, permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order cutting federal funds to sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. In his ruling, the judge writes that the executive order violates the US Constitution’s principles of federalism and separation of powers. This decision is the result of a lawsuit brought by the city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenging the executive order issued in January this year that aimed to cut federal funding for cities which did not comply with a statute that prohibits state and local governments from refusing to relay information about the immigration status of those in their jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities. In his decision, Judge Orrick states: “The Counties have demonstrated that the Executive Order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights.”
Read more