In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Trump administration’s decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was arbitrary and capricious. The Court found that the administration violated the reasoned decision-making requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act by 1) failing to distinguish between the protection from deportation and the benefits granted to recipients under DACA; 2) not considering the consequences of the decision on DACA recipients, their families and communities.
Supreme Court of the United States, February 27 2018, Jennings v. Rodriguez, 15-1204.
In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the United States Supreme reversed a lower court decision holding that some classes of detained immigrants have the right to regular bond hearings during their prolonged detention. In a 5-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit had incorrectly used the canon of constitutional avoidance to read a six-month limit into sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that allow for detention without the possibility of bond. The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit so that it could consider the petitioners’ constitutional arguments in the first instance, more specifically the claim that a prolonged detention without bond hearings is a violation of their rights under the Fifth and Eight Amendments of the U.S. constitution. This case has broad implications for U.S. immigration detention policy. Unless the courts uphold detainees’ due process rights, detained immigrants will continue to be unjustifiably locked up for years by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Supreme Court of The United States, Trump v. Hawaii, 585 (2018): Entry restrictions to the United States against nationals of eight predominantly Muslim countries: The President is within his authority to act based on national security concerns.
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Trump v. Hawaii. The Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Hawaii v. Trump, which had enjoined the entry restrictions against nationals of eight countries in President Trump’s Proclamation 9645 of September 24, 2017, commonly referred to as the “travel ban”. By a 5-4 majority, the Court’s conservatives concluded that the President had acted within his statutory authority under section 1182(f) of the Immigration and nationality Act (INA) in issuing the suspension of entry provisions in the Proclamation. The Court also held that these entry restrictions did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United Constitution, which prohibits favoring one religion over another. The majority relied heavily on the national security justifications for the ruling.
Matter of A-B-, Respondent Decision by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) : Asylum and withholding of removal based on private actor persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.
In a June 11, 2018 decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruled a landmark 2014 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014), which had set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. Attorney General Sessions reversed that precedential decision to rule that, except in rare cases, fleeing domestic abuse and gang-related violence should not be considered a basis for being granted asylum in the United States.
United States District Court, Northern District of California, County of Santa Clara v. Donald Trump, et. al. (Case No. 17-cv-00574-WHO) and City and County of San Francisco v. Donald Trump, et al. (Case No. 17-cv-00485-WHO), November 20, 2017 : Eligibility of Sanctuary Jurisdictions to Federal Grants; Constitutionality of Section 9 (a) of Executive Order 13768.
On November 22, 2017, United States District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California issued a nationwide permanent injunction against the Trump administration for enforcing Section 9 (a) of the Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 against entities deemed sanctuary jurisdictions by the Administration. Instead of confining its ruling to enforcement actions by the Administration against the plaintiffs (the county of Santa Clara and the city and county of San Francisco), Judge Orrick issued instead a nationwide injunction because he found Section 9 (a), which seeks principally to deprive sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grants, to be unconstitutional on its face. In so ordering, judge Orrick sided with the plaintiffs whose motions seeking summary judgment had argued the facial unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a) on four grounds: non-respect of the principle of separation of powers, excessive powers, violation of prohibitions against commandeering, and lack of due process. Besides the question of funding, Judge Orrick also addressed, albeit tangentially, the legality of civil detainer requests, which is at the heart of the Trump administration’s policy toward sanctuary jurisdictions.
Cahiers de l'EDEM 