NIPNLG, Mar. 27, 2024 "As Congress continuously fails to pass humane immigration legislation, many noncitizens remain vulnerable to removal from the United States. While this legislative failure...
Use the promotional code www.lexisnexis.com/BIB2024 for 20% savings on these titles: Immigration Law Handbook Immigration Law Pocket Field Guide J Visa Guidebook Immigration Law and Procedure ...
US v. Texas "In an effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration into Texas, the state legislature passed a bill known as S. B. 4 that amended various statutes. The new laws prohibit noncitizens...
Mendez Galvez v. Garland (unpub.) "The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications...
Walmart v. King "The current statutory scheme unconstitutionally "subverts the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed - as well as the public's ability...
"In Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Paez (and joined in full by Judge Noonan) today affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in an action challenging Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2929, which attempted to criminalize the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens within the state of Arizona. See Download Whiting. This is one of a number of laws passed by the Arizona Legislature, including S.B. 1070, designed to bolster enforcement of the immigration laws.
The panel first held that an individual plaintiff, pastor Luz Santiago, and the organizational plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law. The court determined that Santiago had established a credible threat of prosecution and that the organizational plaintiffs had shown that their missions had been frustrated and their resources diverted as a result of § 13-2929.
The court also held that the statute as written was void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—was unintelligible.
The panel further held that the provision which attempted to criminalize the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens, however it was interpreted, was preempted by federal law and thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
Consequently, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs established the elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bea stated that he concurred with the majority regarding standing and the void for vagueness doctrine, as well as its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs established the elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Judge Bea dissented. He contended that, because his case was resolved on other grounds, namely vagueness, the court should not have reached the federal preemption issue." - Kevin R. Johnson, October 9, 2013.