The Supreme Court held yesterday that an Alabama death row inmate had “constitutionally deficient” counsel at trial. The Court agreed that Anthony Hinton, who was convicted of two 1985 murders, “is entitled to a new trial if he was prejudiced by his lawyer's deficient performance.” The Equal Justice Initiative reports on the case and includes the per curiam opinion.
The New York Times editorial board calls on the Obama administration to address the lack of due process for federal immigrant detainees who are being held without bond hearings. The paper cites a plethora of cases involving the detention of immigrants without hearings or formal charges—evidence of a broken immigration system.
The United Automobile Workers filed a formal objection with the National Labor Relations Board after Volkswagen workers at a Chattanooga, Tennessee plant decided not to join the UAW. Lydia DePillis at The Washington Post considers the possibility that the UAW “get a do-over in Chattanooga.”
In an article for The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin argues why Clarence Thomas’ behavior on the bench is “demeaning the Court.”
The Brookings Institution study shows that DACA “confers two important advantages to approved applicants: a temporary suspension of deportation and the authorization of work in the United States.”
The report finds that since its announcement “more than half a million people have applied for DACA through June 2013; 72 percent have been approved, while just 1 percent have been denied. The majority of the remaining applications are still under review.”
The report also provides demographics of those being helped by the program. Brookings obtained information on DACA via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. For example, the report notes more than “half (54 percent) of all DACA applicants were under age 21.” The applicants were “fairly evenly split between males and females. Fifty one (51) percent of DACA applicants were female; 49 percent were male. The most common year of birth for applicants was 1994.”
Moreover, the study, shows the “vast majority of DACA applicants” have “lived in the United States for at least ten years and nearly one-third were age five or younger at arrival.”
Additionally most of the DACA applicants hail from Mexico, but many others come from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, South Korea, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and the Philippines.
Audrey Singer, co-author of the report, told The New York Times, “If we think about what they’ve done in their lives and how they’ve spent time in this country, the fact is that they’ve been part of the American school system. This is one of the big things that makes them American.”
In a post for the National Council of La Raza’s blog, the group says the success of DACA “can be measured by the stories of the more than 400,000 people whose applications have been approved and who can now live without fear of deportation while continuing their education and contributions for their communities.”
While the Senate was able to come together to pass a long overdue immigration reform bill, the House, in the grip of a party devoted to hobbling government, DACA is a significant example of an executive branch action that is making a positive difference in the lives of many young immigrants.
Since the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arizona last summer (and Whiting v. Chamber of Commerce in 2011), circuit courts have been busy applying the opinion to immigration regulations percolating through the federal courts in their respective jurisdictions. The Third Circuit in Lozano v. Hazleton invalidated the Hazleton, Pennsylvania employment and rental ordinances; the Fourth Circuit in United States v. South Carolina invalidated sections of South Carolina’s immigration enforcement scheme; the Fifth Circuit in Villas at Parkside Partners v. Farmers Branch invalidated the Farmers Branch, Texas rental ordinance; and the Eleventh Circuit invalidated sections of Alabama’s and Georgia’s immigration enforcement schemes. These decisions reduce some of the legal uncertainty surrounding the recent proliferation of subfederal immigration legislation. Notably, however, they also leave some important questions unanswered. And, they do so in a way that is doctrinally precarious.
First, based on the Arizona Court’s decision not to enjoin §2(B) of SB 1070, a few provisions of state enforcement schemes in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia were left intact. Following Arizona’s lead, the Northern District of Georgia (on remand from the Eleventh Circuit), rejected a facial challenge to § 8 of the state’s 2011 Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act, which allows local law enforcement officers to investigate the immigration status of individuals if the officials have probable cause that the individual committed a crime and if that individual cannot produce adequate proof of lawful status. Fourth Amendment or other constitutional challenges to that provision must now proceed on an as-applied basis, similar to the ongoing litigation challenge to SB 1070’s § 2(B). Litigation on these provisions will take some time to resolve the important racial profiling and discrimination concerns implicated by local law enforcement participation in immigration matters.
While the Senate’s passage of a comprehensive immigration bill may or may not be historic, it’s certainly remarkable. In an era of hyper-partisanship, it is far easier for the Senate to block action -- unless it’s approval of secret surveillance measures -- than it is to pass meaningful legislation or save the nation from outrageous cuts to social safety net and educational programs.
But for today 14 Republican senators joined 54 Democrats to pass the expansive measure that provides a 13-year long path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people in the country, provided stringent enforcement mechanisms are in place. The New York Times provides some highlights of the Senate measure that was approved 68 – 32 late this afternoon. Tens of millions are allotted for enforcement measures, such as 20,000 more Border Patrol agents and “700 miles of fencing along the southern border.” Only after the enforcement measures are in place will undocumented immigrants be allowed to start on the lengthy path to citizenship.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lauded the immigration bill, saying it honors “our American values.” He said the immigration measure would help “address a complex problem that is hurting our families, stifling our economy and threatening our security.”
The National Council of La Raza also praised the Senate measure and called today’s vote a “milestone.” But the group’s President and CEO Janet Murguia also noted that like many compromise measures this one “included painful concessions and certainly puts our enforcement-heavy immigration policy into overdrive. But it finally acknowledges that restoring the rule of law requires a legal immigration system that takes the legitimate traffic out of the black market, allows immigrants to arrive with visas rather than with smugglers and enables immigrants who are working and raising families in the U.S. to come forward, go through criminal background checks, get in the system and get on the books.”
But the bill is nowhere near President Obama’s desk. The House of Representatives controlled by a Republican Party devoted largely to gridlock is unlikely to prove helpful. Reporting for TPM, Brian Beutler noted that House Speaker John Boehner said the House has no interest in passing a comprehensive measure, let alone the one the Senate just approved. “The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” Boehner said. “We’re going to do our own bill through regular order, and there’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people. For any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members.”
It seems whenever given the opportunity to weaken the judiciary, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) runs with it and in the process spreads lots of misinformation about the federal courts.
Grassley, who has helped his Republican colleagues in the Senate block or slow-walk President Obama’s judicial nominees, has called for cutting the number of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, discussed here.
Now as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins consideration of the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill, S. 744, the Ranking Member Grassley has offered 77 amendments to the legislation. Among them is one, dubbed Grassley17, which would isolate immigration court rulings from federal court review. As it stands now, the bill provides for some judicial review. For example, individuals denied citizenship could seek review in a district court or court of appeals pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.
But Grassley’s effort to alter the comprehensive immigration measure would close the door to federal courts, except for one – in Washington, D.C. and only for review of constitutional challenges. Thus if immigration judges improperly deny or revoke citizenship, their actions will largely go unchallenged.
Not only is Grassley’s effort an affront to judicial review, it is, let’s be honest, a part of a wider attempt to greatly slow or scuttle immigration reform. S. 744 is a rather large bill and far from perfect. It includes stringent enforcement provisions including billions of dollars for the Department of Homeland Security to spend on border enforcement. It also requires undocumented immigrants to wait at least 10 years until they can apply for legal residence and another three years until naturalization, according to The New York Times.
But senators have offered more than 300 amendments to the immigration reform bill. Seth Freed Wessler of ColorLines says the Republican amendments “would largely gut the promise of a path to citizenship and impose nearly unachievable benchmarks for border security.” Nonetheless Wessler notes Democrats control the committee and are thus likely to hold off many of the amendments. Wessler though notes some of Grassley’s other amendments, such as one that would strike language aimed at protecting “immigrants from being deported because” of anti-immigrant laws, such as the one enacted by Arizona.