By Rachel Serebrenik Over the last two months, federal judges across the United States have generally ruled in favor of “sanctuary cities.” On June 6, 2018 U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson ruled that the Trump administration cannot cut off funds to Philadelphia’s […]
By Ryan Lee On June 27th, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court fees for AFSCME account for 78.06% of the full union dues. Janus, a state employee represented by AFSCME, fundamentally opposes the positions of the labor union with respect to […]
By Jennifer Hepner On June 26th, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of President Trump’s updated travel ban, prohibiting the entry into the United States of foreign nationals from seven countries, of which five are predominately […]
By Jennifer Hepner On June 11th, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the state of Ohio’s efforts to purge its voting rolls in Husted, Ohio Secretary of State v. A. Philip Randolph Institute […]
By Alyssa Kapasi On Wednesday, May 23, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York Naomi Reice Buchwald issued a ruling in the case of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Rebecca Buckwalter, Philip Cohen, Holly Figueroa, Eugene Gu, […]
On April 25, 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for the landmark case State Of Hawai’i And Ishmael Elshikh vs. Donald J. Trump, et al in which the State of Hawaii sued the federal government to stop the implementation of Executive Order No. 13,780. The executive order, which is titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”, is President Trump’s third attempt at a travel ban and it restricts the entry of foreign nationals from 6 specified Muslim countries and two non-Muslim majority nations (Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela and Chad). Chad was later removed from the Travel Ban on April 11, 2018. It also suspends entrants from the United States refugee program for specified periods of time.
On March 28, 2018, a Maryland District Court denied-in-part President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit (The District of Columbia and The State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, individually and in his official capacity as President of the United States), alleging that Trump violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. The case was filed by the Attorneys General of the District of Columbia and Maryland. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s emoluments violations harm the sovereign, quasi-sovereign, proprietary and parens patriae interests of Maryland and the District of Columbia. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that Trump’s violations harm the interest of Maryland and D.C. in “protecting their economies and residents.”
On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump Administration’s appeal to the decision for the DACA case in the Northern District of California. In an unusual step, called “certiorari before judgment,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not only appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, to review the Northern District of California’s decision, but simultaneously requested the Supreme Court to immediately take up the case, bypass the Ninth Circuit, and issue an emergency ruling on the merits. Certiorari before judgement has typically been used only in major cases involving national crises that require immediate resolution, such as in the cases Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, when President Harry Truman attempted to seize control of the U.S. Steel industry for the war effort in Korea, or U.S. v. Nixon when President Richard Nixon’s refused a special prosecutor’s subpoena to turn over White House tape recordings.
On March 6, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against the State of California in the Eastern District of California (United States of America v. California) over three new “Sanctuary City” laws signed by Governor Jerry Brown that took effect at the start of this year that limit the California police departments to cooperate, share information with, and transfer detained undocumented individuals to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The DOJ’s Complaint relies on the broad authority of the Executive Branch to enforce immigration laws, as well as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that establishes, as the Complaint cites, “a state enactment is invalid if it ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), or if it ‘discriminate[s] against the United States or those with whom it deals,” South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988).’” The DOJ also cites that California does not generally apply similar laws that limit cooperation with other federal agencies, and thus the DOJ claims that these Sanctuary City laws are discriminatory toward the agencies that enforce compliance with federal immigration laws.
On January 9, 2018, Judge William Alsup of the federal district court for the Northern District of California enjoined (i.e. stopped) the administration’s recession of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
DACA allowed persons who entered the U.S. as children permission to work and pay taxes, return to the U.S. following departure, and stay in the U.S. without accruing unlawful presence. In September 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, citing the threat of potential litigation concerning DACA and claiming that DACA was unconstitutional, directed the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Elaine Duke, to rescind DACA.