A judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a preliminary injunction against a Sept. 2019 executive order that, as the judge described, effectively "gives individual States and Local Governments veto power over resettlement." The judge argued that the plaintiffs are "clearly likely to succeed" on the merits of their suit and that "they have also shown that they will be irreparably harmed" if the order and a corresponding funding notice get implemented.
Latest in Immigration
The rule, which would affect more than 40,000 people, has raised some civil liberties concerns. Here’s what we know so far.
In October, President Trump issued a proclamation denying entry into the U.S. for otherwise qualified visa applicants unless they are likely to receive “approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry or can pay for their health care. A District Court just issued an injunction against the ban.
New Homeland Security Asylum Rule Allows Removal to Central American Countries That Have Signed Agreements With the U.S.
In a new rule, DHS authorizes removal of asylum seekers at the southern border of the U.S. to Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador for asylum processing in those countries, as long as the removed individuals are not nationals of the particular country that will receive them.
The U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts held that searches of electronic devices at ports of entry require reasonable suspicion. The document is available here and below.
The decision highlighted key tensions between the ban on uninsured immigrants and existing law.
A U.S. district court has limited the ability of immigration detainees to use an important procedural tool to challenge their detention. With the ruling, detainees are restricted in their ability to bring a Rule 23(b)(2) class action to assert a right to individualized bond hearings under the Due Process Clause. The order lays bare the consequences of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez and foreshadows increased difficulty for detained asylum-seekers hoping to challenge their prolonged imprisonment without bond hearings.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found President Trump’s proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border to be unlawful, ruling that the use of funds for this project violates the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and called on them to file a “proposed preliminary injunction” specifying the scope of said injunction with ten days, after which the Trump administration is directed to respond.
On Oct. 4, President Trump issued a proclamation that bars otherwise qualified visa applicants from entry into the United States unless they are likely to obtain “approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry.
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the third country asylum rule recently issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule would bar foreign nationals who cross the U.S.-Mexico border from receipt of U.S. asylum when they transit through a third country without applying for protection in that country.