Border Security and Immigration

A federal district court has issued a temporary nationwide injunction requiring the Trump administration to maintain much of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Four states (California, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota) and two local governments (San Jose and Santa Clara County) are among the plaintiffs who sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DACA was established through a DHS Memorandum during the Obama presidency. The program allows undocumented persons who arrived in the United States before age 16 and have lived here since June 15, 2007, to stay, work, and go to school in the United States without facing the risk of deportation for two years with renewals available.

DHS rescinded DACA on September 5, 2017, after receiving a letter from the Attorney General stating the program was unconstitutional and created “without proper statutory authority.”

The Ninth Circuit opinion temporarily striking down President Trump’s third travel ban was met with little fanfare likely for two reasons. The decision came down right before Christmas (December 22). And in early December the Supreme Court allowed the third travel ban to go into effect until the Supreme Court rules on it, even if the Ninth Circuit (or Fourth Circuit) were to strike it down in the meantime.   

The Supreme Court has allowed the third travel ban to go into effect at least temporarily while two federal circuit courts of appeals review decisions from lower courts temporarily blocking enforcement of the travel ban. Even if the government loses before the appeals courts the travel ban will remain in effect until the Supreme Court rules on it or refuses to rule on it (unless the government doesn’t appeal to the Supreme Court).

The president’s second travel ban prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United State” until the Court could hear the case on the merits in early October.

In April a federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from enforcing the sanctuary jurisdictions portion of the Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States executive order (EO). The same court has made that injunction permanent. 

Section 9 of the EO says that jurisdictions that refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are ineligible to receive federal grants. On its face Section 1373 prohibits local governments from restricting employee communication of immigration status information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Congress created the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG) in 2005 to provide “flexible” funding for state and local police departments. In April 2017 the Department of Justice (DOJ) required Philadelphia (and eight other jurisdictions) to provide documentation that it complies with 8 U.S.C. 1373, which prohibits states and local governments from restricting employees from sharing immigration status information with federal immigration officials.

Philadelphia sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions arguing that the City complies with 8 U.S.C. 1373. A federal district court in Philadelphia agreed and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Sessions from denying the City Byrne JAG grant funding.

Among other things, Sessions objected to a Philadelphia policy of not responding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) civil immigration detainer requests asking the City to hold an arrested, undocumented person until ICE can pick them up, unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant.

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions has his way the answer will be yes he told the Senate Judiciary Committee shortly after two federal district courts temporarily prevented the third travel ban from going into effect.

The president’s March 6 executive order (the second travel ban) prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United State” until the Court could hear the case on the merits in early October.

The Supreme Court will no longer hear oral argument in the travel ban case—previously scheduled for October 10—for now. The Court has asked the parties to brief whether the new travel ban makes the case moot, meaning the dispute, and therefore the case, is over.

The president’s March 6 executive order prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This travel ban was set to expire on September 24.

On September 24 the President issued a presidential proclamation indefinitely banning immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Also, certain government officials and their families from Venezuela may no longer receive non-immigrant visas.

The Supreme Court will no longer hear oral argument in the travel ban case—previously scheduled for October 10—for now. The Court has asked the parties to brief whether the new travel ban makes the case moot, meaning the dispute, and therefore the case, is over.

The president’s March 6 executive order prevented people from six predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days. In June the Supreme Court temporarily prevented it from going into effect against those with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This travel ban was set to expire on September 24.

On September 24 the President issued a presidential proclamation indefinitely banning immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Also, certain government officials and their families from Venezuela may no longer receive non-immigrant visas.

In July the Department of Justice (DOJ) added two new requirements for states and local governments to receive federal Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG) for law enforcement funding. Chicago sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions arguing that these new requirements and another requirement are unlawful and/or unconstitutional. An Illinois federal district court granted Chicago’s request for a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily disallowing DOJ from imposing the two new requirements.     

Congress created Byrne JAG in 2005 to provide “flexible” funding for state and local police departments. In April 2017 DOJ required Chicago (and eight other jurisdictions) to provide documentation that it complies with 8 U.S.C. 1373, which prohibits states and local governments from restricting employees from sharing immigration status information with federal immigration officials.

Since his Presidency began President Trump has been rolling back (or trying to roll back) many of the actions of President Obama. Sometimes (at least in theory) it is easier (practically if not politically) to do this than other times.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program allowed undocumented persons who arrived in the United States before age 16 and have lived here since June 15, 2007, to stay, work, and go to school in the United States without facing the risk of deportation for two years with renewals available.  

DACA was established through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum during the Obama presidency. Getting rid of a statute requires action by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. Getting rid of regulations requires going through the Administrative Procedures Act lengthy notice-and-comment process. Getting rid of an agency memorandum requires issuing a superseding memorandum, which DHS has done.    

Pages