Immigration USA

Arizona v. United States, (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wishes to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

2014 President Obama issued an executive order — the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) — to allow many illegal immigrants to be granted ‘deferred action status’. This meant that, although not granted full citizenship, they would be subject to an indefinite delay in their deportation from the United States. To be eligible for DAPA, a person must:

■ have lived in the United States without interruption since 1 January 2010

■ be physically present in the United States when applying

■ have a child who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident

■ be free from any criminal conviction

■ not pose a threat to national security

This would have allowed some 5 million unauthorised immigrants who were parents of lawful residents to remain legally in the country.

In December of the same year, Texas along with 25 other states, all with Republican governors, challenged the President’s action in federal court.In November 2015, the federal appeals court found that President Obama did not have such powers, and that his action was unconstitutional as it breached the clause of Article II of the Constitution that requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’. In other words it was not up to the president which laws he enforced.

The 4–4 tied decision left in place the federal appeals court decision blocking the plan. The Supreme Court’s judgement in United States v Texas (2016)

On June 15, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded DAPA, making the case moot. DACA was left in tact and further attempts by the Trump administration to end DACA failed.

The Trump Travel Ban - While not an immigration case the checks which Trump faced illustrate the role of the courts.

The president and the Supreme Court

The 2017 Trump travel ban (sometimes called the "Muslim ban") First, Executive Order 13769 placed stringent restrictions on travel to the United States for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Following protests and legal challenges, a second order, Executive Order 13780, amended some provisions of the first order, and removed Iraq from the list. Finally, Presidential Proclamation 9645 added restrictions on Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela, while Sudan was removed.

The 'Wait in Mexico' Policy

August 2021 Biden's attempt to roll back some of Trump's immigration policies were prevented by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S. With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court said the administration likely violated federal law in its efforts to rescind the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

The justices said in their unsigned decision that the Biden administration appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously by rescinding the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. They also cited last year's decision in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California case. That decision blocked the Trump administration's effort to undo the Obama-era program protecting young immigrants that came to the U.S. as children. The court declared that policy to be 'arbitrary and capricious'. This is an example of the court attempting to maintain consistent precedents. Immigration advocates, including the American Immigration Council said Remain in Mexico is a dangerous policy for thousands of people seeking humanitarian aid.

After Remain in Mexico was enacted in 2019, thousands of asylum-seekers were forced to await their immigration hearings in the U.S. in rough conditions across the border.