Showing posts with label Supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme court. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Supreme Court Republican Judges Leave Title 42 in Place

 Migrant Expulsion Policy Must Stay in Place for Now, Supreme Court Says. NYT.

The temporary stay in lifting the pandemic rule known as Title 42 is a provisional victory for 19 states, led mostly by Republicans, that had sought to keep it in place on the border.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that a pandemic-era health measure that restricted migration at the southern border would remain in place for the time being, delaying the potential for a huge increase in unlawful crossings.

In a brief unsigned order, the justices halted a trial judge’s ruling that would have lifted the measure, known as Title 42, which has allowed even migrants who might otherwise qualify for asylum to be swiftly expelled at the border.

The court said that it would hear arguments in the case in February and that the stay would remain in place pending a ruling. The justices said they would address only the question of whether the 19 mainly Republican-led states that had sought the stay could pursue their challenge to the measure.


Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The White House indicated that it would comply with the Supreme Court’s order and prepare for its review. “At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said. 


Note: Title 42 was established because the Trump Administration said there was a health crisis at the border. Covid. 

 

 

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Court Allows Remain in Mexico Policy to Continue



Gabe Ortiz, Daily Kos
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration can continue enforcing its inhumane Remain in Mexico policy as litigation continues. The policy, which has forced up to 62,000 asylum-seekers to wait for their U.S. immigration court cases in Mexico, many of them in dangerous conditions, had been blocked by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month.
[ the Court ruled that the policy could remain in place while appeals continue }
“The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal,” Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project said in a statement. “The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.” 
The Trump administration has increasingly run to the Supreme Court following unfavorable court decisions against its anti-immigrant policies. “In the past year, the justices let the administration deter poor immigrants, deny asylum seekers and redirect military funds to build a wall along the southern border,” USA Today reportedlast month.
The court is also expected to issue soon a decision on the administration’s termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, with a ruling in the impeached president’s favor standing to result in upheaval for hundreds of thousands of families across the U.S. During a recent Senate hearing, California Sen. Kamala Harris grilled acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf on federal immigration officials’ plans for after a court decision, getting him to commit to handing over that information.
”Any day now, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the DACA case,” Harris later tweeted. “Our DREAMers deserve to know whether this administration is planning to deport them from the only home they’ve ever known.”




Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Supreme Court to Hear DACA Case


SCOTUS TO DECIDE FATE OF DACA: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning regarding the Trump administration's attempt, thwarted by multiple appellate judges, to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. A high court ruling, expected no later than June 2020, will decide the fate of nearly 669,000 Dreamers who were extended protection when President Barack Obama created DACA. POLITICO's Josh Gerstein will follow the arguments today. Members of Congress, DACA recipients, and supporters of the program will hold a pro-DACA rally on the court steps. 
The Trump administration terminated DACA on March 5, 2018, and while appeals courts compelled the administration to re-start the process for renewing DACA enrollment, no new applicants were accepted, POLITICO's Bianca Quilantan reports. Duke University senior Axel Herrera Ramos said the Supreme Court's decision will determine his plans after graduation. "For many of us who have DACA, it's been two years of waiting this out. In some ways, I believe that you get a little bit numb to the news of it. It's just extremely draining." 
If the court rules DACA unlawful, no future administration will be able to revive it without getting a bill through Congress. DACA recipients will lose their protection from deportation and, more immediately, their ability to work or to attend school legally. 143 different businesses and business associations have warned that eliminating the program "will inflict serious harm on U.S. companies, all workers, and the American economy as a whole."
"DACA recipients are filling vacancies at companies that otherwise would not be able to attract workers for open positions," these businesses wrote in an amicus brief last month. "They are creating businesses that employ other Americans. And their increased wages lead to higher tax revenues and expansion of our national GDP — producing new jobs and benefits for all Americans."

Friday, June 24, 2016

LULAC Responds to the Supreme Court Failure to Act

June 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today in U.S v. Texas, an equally divided U.S. Supreme Court left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the implementation of President Obama’s expanded executive action programs that would have granted over 4 million people work authorization and temporary relief from deportation. The President’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) would have extended protections to parents with U.S.-born children who met certain requirements. In addition, the split decision today leaves in place the lower court's stay of the expansion of the President’s other program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects certain undocumented youth who came to the United States as children from deportation. However, the original DACA announced 4 years ago remains in effect. 

“Today’s decision marks a significant setback for more than 4 million undocumented immigrants in this country,” said LULAC National President Roger C. Rocha, Jr. “The hope had been that those individuals would be able to come out of the shadows and legally contribute to the United States with three year work permits. While today’s split decision does not impact the original 2012 DACA program, the injunction on expanded DACA and DAPA remains in effect, and the lives of millions of immigrants will continue to be in limbo. The United States must move forward and value the contributions of those who follow the rules and provide for their families. We cannot continue to tear families apart by deporting individuals whose only wish is to provide for their families." 

While today’s U.S. Supreme Court split decision allows the injunction to remain, LULAC will not be deterred in its efforts to provide justice to these individuals. 

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Republican Supreme Court to Take Up DAPA


NYT editorial. Jan. 20,2016.

As soon as 26 states took it upon themselves to sue President Obama over the sensible, humane executive actions he took in late 2014 to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, it was inevitable that the lawsuit would land on the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

On Tuesday morning, the justices announced that they would hear the case, which means a decision will most likely come down by the end of June. The states should never have been allowed standing to sue in the first place, and their substantive claims are groundless.

There are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. No one, besides Donald Trump, believes the nation has the resources, or the will, to deport them all. The clearest solution is to focus on removing those who pose an actual threat to public safety while deferring action on most of the rest and helping them “come out of the shadows.” In 2012, the Obama administration allowed young immigrantswho were brought here as children to be given work permits and be exempted from deportation, a program that has worked well. In November 2014, the president announced a plan to offer work permits and a three-year reprieve from deportation to as many as five million undocumented parents of American citizens or permanent residents, provided they had no criminal record and had lived in the country at least five years.

Monday, January 04, 2016

The Republican Campaign to Restrict Latino Voting Rights : What counts as a Person?

The Next Big Voting-Rights Fight


Emily Bazelon and Jim Rutenberg
December 31, 2015
New York Times

If you’re no longer drawing lines on population but you’re selectively using criteria like age, that hits [the Hispanic] community very hard. Put aside the whole citizenship issue. The largest group of people who would be subtracted from the apportionment base would be children, and because [Hispanics] have disproportionately so many more children than the Anglo population has, that starts shifting seats all by itself, before you start to even consider citizenship.



U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) (C) speaks as Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) (R) and Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund President and General Counsel Thomas Saenz (L) listen during a news conference in front of the Supreme Court on Dec. 8, 2015 , Alex Wong/Getty Images ,


Over the past year, The New York Times Magazine has chronicled the long campaign that led to the Supreme Court’s 2013 nullification of the Voting Rights Act’s most powerful provision — its Section 5 — and the consequences that decision has had for minority voters. As I’ve written in our Disenfranchised series, the gutting of Section 5 facilitated an onslaught of restrictive new laws that made voting disproportionately harder for minorities across the country, marking the biggest setback to minority voting rights in the half-century since President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard a new case, Evenwel v. Abbott, that could also have a significant effect on minority political power — specifically, Hispanic voting power. Evenwel stems from a case first instigated in Texas by the same conservative group — the Project on Fair Representation — that helped bring about the decision gutting Section 5 in 2013. Like all of these big election cases, the issues involved are complicated, which may explain why Evenwel has drawn less media attention than it deserves; it does not reduce easily into sound bites. But the Court’s decision in Evenwel could be among the most important developments in politics in 2016, and well beyond. This series would not be complete for 2015 without a review of the case. My colleague Emily Bazelon and I have done our best to break it down as simply as possible, trading off segments to explain the main legal questions at play, the potential consequences and the likely outcomes. A decision is expected by June of 2016. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act



Just hours ago, the Supreme Court struck down 40 years of voting rights protections by gutting the Voting Rights Act in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. This is a major setback for voting rights and will have a real and detrimental impact on voters.

We need to respond TODAY. Reps. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) introduced a bill to support a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing the right to vote. Sign our petition now supporting the National Right to Vote Amendment and we will deliver your signatures to Congress right away.

http://action.usaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=548&track=taf

This ruling is a continuation and escalation of the war on voting. Republicans are using every gimmick and trick in the book to ram radical voter ID laws and roll back early voting and same day registration in state legislatures throughout the country. These laws specifically targeted minority voters with their motivation all too obvious — prevent minorities to vote in order to win GOP victories across the country.

We worked tirelessly to fight back against these laws, and in some cases we were victorious — at least temporarily. But in some cases like Florida, it became all too clear what happens when the GOP is successful in preventing the right to vote, with reports of voters waiting in line for for up to 7 hours just to cast their ballot.

This past election has made it abundantly clear that we need MORE voting rights protections, not less. Which is why this ruling is especially devastating today. Sign our petition now in support of the National Right to Vote Amendment.

http://action.usaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=548&track=taf

Our country is founded on the principle that we the people decide who will be our elected leaders. Discrimination and restricting the right to vote are an assault on the very fundamental principle this country is founded upon. Now join us as we take a stand to defend this most essential right. Click here to sign the petition now.

Monday, November 05, 2012

Republican Voter suppression in Florida - again


First the  major media accustomed  itself  to Romney/Ryan’s persistent and deliberate lying.  This has become normal and seldom even commented upon. This morning they are accepting Florida voter suppression ( focused in districts of  Latinos and African Americans) as not a big story.
If this election ends up in the Supreme Court like the election of 2000, voter suppression will be the cause.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

"Show me your papers" - Arizona


In allowing the notorious "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's SB 1070 bill, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively supports the rollback of rights and protections that have been long fought for and honored in this country -- specifically,  the freedom from racial discrimination. Importantly, the Court struck down the other three provisions that had been challenged in the case.
Ruling on whether or not the "show me your papers" provision (Section 2B) "pre-empted" federal authority in immigration, the highest court in the country decided it was "premature" to block it. However, we are alarmed that this provision, very much the heart of SB 1070, can only be implemented through racial profiling.
The provision requires state and local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped, detained or arrested whenever there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person may be undocumented, and to verify that person's status with the federal government.
As an Arizona community leader has pointed out, "and we know what 'reasonable suspicion' is: brown skin."
Although the ruling left open the potential for legal challenges on the implementation of the law, we are deeply concerned, in the meantime, about the rights and protections of our communities in Arizona. Already, it has been the practice of police in the Tucson sector to "hold" people they have stopped for 20 minutes until they can make contact with a federal agent - not a problem given that there are literally thousands of Border Patrol agents constantly milling around, particularly with the decrease in cross border migration. This practice will undoubtedly increase the number of immigrants who are being detained and deported simply because they were driving their children to school, going to a grocery store, or just going about their daily lives.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Supreme Court blocks some of Arizona SB 1070



 The U.S. Supreme court today struck down most provisions of the Arizona law SB 1070 while sustaining one of its most controversial provisions.
The court sustained the “show me your papers” provision of the law that requires state law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
The most conservative members of the court voted to sustain the entire law.  Imagine this.  Judges who consider themselves conservative support a law that requires all persons to carry papers to show their immigration/citizenship status.   This is a practice most often found in repressive regimes such as that of Syria or Nazi Germany.
The decision was a partial victory for the Obama administration, which had sued to block several parts of the law.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Developments in the immigrants' rights arena


Last Friday, President Obama announced he would grant "deferred action" on deportation to certain young immigrants eligible under specific guidelines for a two-year period. While we welcome this decision, we also recognize its limitations in scope and implementation. Some immigrant youth will have much-needed reprieve, but countless others in our communities will continue to fall through the net. Our struggle continues. Several key developments in recent months - from the SCOTUS hearing on SB 1070 to Alabama's HB 658 to the new Border Patrol strategy - illustrate the challenges that we continue to face as diverse communities and as a movement for rights, justice and dignity of all people. We hope you'll join us in this journey as we continue to affirm the need to offer real opportunities for adjustment of status, a generous legalization program that upholds our humanity and respects our dignity.
.
Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070 expected  

Later this month, the Supreme Court is slated to announce their final ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant racial profiling law, SB 1070. What does this mean for our communities and how will we respond? We have compiled a few key resources to help make sense of it all.  Read more... 



Friday, April 27, 2012

Moral Authority and the U.S. Supreme Court- Acuña


and La Mordida, by Rodolfo F. Acuña.

Direct forms of political control are easy to figure out. For a time, laws and police agencies can keep things together. However, most institutions and societies depend on social control to deceive people into thinking that they live in a democracy. They use processes that socialize them into believing that those in control have moral authority.

Belief systems exert a greater control on behavior than laws. For example, religion maintains control through laws. Nevertheless, institutions such as the Catholic Church maintain control more through their moral authority than their laws. A society does not stay together for a long period of time through the use of coercive powers alone.

Historical events such as the Black Plague in the first part of the 14th Century shook the Church’s moral authority and two centuries later the Protestant Revolt ended the hegemony of Catholicism in Europe. No one can predict what effect the Church’s pedophile scandal will have. One thing for sure is that the scandal has reduced the moral authority of the Church Fathers and their interpretation of what god wants.

In the similar vein, government has suffered a loss of moral authority. This is good and bad; one thing is for sure it is leading to a divided society. Although the number of southern states passing anti-immigrant laws has grown to over a half dozen and they are flushed with emotion, it must be remembered that California and New York alone dwarf the population numbers and wealth of the red states.

Much has been written about the growth of the Latino population and its voting power. But truth be told, Latinos are growing increasingly disaffected with government and most are cynical about its fairness.

The institution that has taken the hardest hit in the past dozen years is the Supreme Court.

Friday, September 21, 2007

We must persevere

We Must Persevere
Recently, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that makes school integration far more difficult. Civil rights leader Julian Bond responds.

By Julian Bond

At age 15, my grandfather, born into slavery and barely able to read and write, hitched his tuition -- a steer -- to a rope and walked 100 miles across Kentucky to knock on the door of Berea College. The school admitted him and, 14 years later, asked him to deliver the commencement address when he finally graduated.

"In every cloud," my grandfather said, the pessimist "beholds a destructive storm, in every flash of lightning an omen of evil, and in every shadow that falls across his path a lurking foe. He forgets that the clouds also bring life and hope, that lightning purifies the atmosphere, that shadow and darkness prepare for sunshine and growth, and that hardships and adversity nerve the race, as the individual, for greater efforts and grander victories."

This summer, I thought of my grandfather and his steadfast optimism as I read the deeply divided Supreme Court's 169-page decision on school integration, a ruling that severely undercuts our nation's ability to provide equal educational opportunities for its children. Four conservative members of the Court went so far as to suggest that our schools may not take race into account to combat "de facto" segregation and the injuries it inflicts.

How very far we have fallen since that Spring day in 1954 when a unanimous Supreme Court mustered the moral courage in Brown v. Board of Education to demand, in 11 simple and eloquent pages, that our nation afford equal -- and integrated -- educational opportunities, so that our shameful tradition of white supremacy might be undone. How very hard it is to maintain optimism -- to see the sunshine my grandfather always saw behind dark clouds -- when contemplating what the Court has done in 2007.

Our schools have long been held up as our most important democratic institution, pathways to class mobility and generational progress. A public educational system that is fully integrated and treats minorities and whites equally is the antithesis of the larger society, which has been and remains profoundly segregated and unequal.

I once heard Minnijean Brown reflect on her experiences as one of the heroic Little Rock Nine who integrated Central High School in 1957. Someone asked why she kept coming back to school day after day, despite daily harassment and intimidation that would have driven most people away.

From the ferocity of her enemies, she said, "I knew there was something precious inside that school," and she was more determined to get it than they were to keep it from her grasp. Minnijean and the Supreme Court Justices who delivered and supported Brown understood schools as pathways to righting the wrongs of societal racism.

But today's Supreme Court has embraced another vision for American education: schooling as an instrument for reproducing the class and race privilege of the larger society. At the dawn of the 21st century, one in six African American children still attended what researchers call "apartheid schools" -- schools that are virtually 100% children of color -- and no school district in America has managed to create equal educational opportunities within these schools on a large scale or in a sustained manner, particularly at the secondary level.

Today's Court has turned its back on the millions of black and Latino children currently trapped in highly segregated, underperforming schools, leaving them to hang on the ropes of racial and economic disenfranchisement. The Court has paved the way for many more children of color to join them by outlawing the modest means numerous districts have adopted to promote racial diversity and overcome racial isolation. It has denied the very notion that our nation's schools should serve as equalizers.

Three years ago, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, the country asked itself whether our nation had fulfilled Brown's promise. Many emphasized that Brown had brought about a sea change in American life — tearing down the walls of segregation and serving as an impetus for equal rights for groups other than African Americans. Others pointed to the facts that our schools were resegregating and that society was still marked by stark inequalities. The Supreme Court’s recent decision is likely to be remembered as Brown’s final epitaph.

I think again of my grandfather, a man who walked 100 miles to a college that had not admitted him and who, once accepted, labored 14 years for his diploma. His actions are what speak most profoundly to me in this moment: We must persevere. We must strengthen our resolve against the destructive storm that has descended upon us.

If schools can no longer be used to address our country’s racist traditions, then we as a country must attack racism by other means. If our schools are no longer allowed to offset the consequences of persistent residential segregation, for example, then we as a country must attack the problem directly. If our schools are not allowed to serve as equalizers towards remedying the vast inequalities that continue to fester in our country, then we as a country must confront those inequalities head-on. If we cannot rely on the courts, then we must lobby the legislatures.

Only with a renewed commitment will we be prepared to undertake, as my grandfather would have said, the "greater efforts" towards the "grander victories" this new era requires. Only with renewed commitment can our country become the nation it should be. Only with renewed commitment will we fulfill the promise of Brown.

Julian Bond has served as chair of the NAACP Board of Directors since 1998 and is president emeritus and a board member of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes Teaching Tolerance magazine. He is a distinguished professor in the School of Government at American University in Washington, DC, and a professor of history at the University of Virginia.
From: Teachingtolerance.org

Friday, June 29, 2007

Supreme Court decision on school integration

It is important to select and fight current battles based upon the reality of our cities, not based upon how segregation worked prior to 1954.
I am not certain how this decision will impact mega cities like New York, Boston, etc. In mid sized cities like Sacramento, Seattle, Louisville, all of the high schools are integrated. In Sacramento they range from 25% Latino, 23 % African American, 26% Asian, 24% Anglo. Each category ranges up and down 10- 15 %. Elementary schools are far more diverse. So, each school will have a minority population of at least 45%. The argument is that an Anglo student should not be allowed to transfer out of a school if it impacts the demographics of the school. So, the debate is should a student be restricted if he chooses to move from a school that is 20% Anglo to a school that is 40% Anglo. Unlike prior to Brown: there are no all white schools in the cities. There are overwhelmingly white schools in the suburbs, but since these are in separate districts, the court long ago decided that governments could not mandate across district integration.
The Brown decision said that separate and equal was never equal, and it mandated forms of integration. What we have now is integrated and unequal- and the urban schools have a series of crises. Until we begin to provide quality schooling in our urban schools, until we act upon the unequal part of the Brown decision, we really are not making much progress.
Duane Campbell