State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012)
|
|
- Deborah Poole
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012) This memo will discuss the constitutionality of certain sections of Mississippi s HB 488 after House amendments. A. INTRODUCTION There is a significant risk that HB 488 still will face successful constitutional challenges. All state omnibus immigration enforcement bills like this one have been temporarily blocked by federal courts in whole or in part. 1 Even as amended, several individual pieces of laws that are similar to HB 488 already have been blocked by one or more federal courts in other states: Requiring officers to investigate immigration status when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present (Section 2(2)); Requiring officers to investigate the immigration status of all arrested individuals before they are released from custody (Section 2(2)); Making it a felony for an unlawfully present person to engage or attempt to engage in a business transaction with the state (Section 3); Making it a felony to engage or attempt to engage in a business transaction with the state on behalf of an unlawfully present person (Section 3). Just last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (with jurisdiction over Mississippi) held that a Texas immigration-related ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law. The court focused closely on the legislative history and intent of the measure and held: Because the sole purpose of the Ordinance is to target illegal aliens and effect their removal from the City, we also 1 United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010); affirmed United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011); Buquer v. Indianapolis, 797 F. Supp.2d 905 (S.D. Ind. 2011); Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal, 793 F. Supp.2d 1317 (2011); United States v. South Carolina, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-2958, 2:11-cv-2779, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. S.C. December 22, 2011); Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al. v. Bentley, Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-2484-SLB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ala. September 28, 2011); United States v. Alabama, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-2746-SLB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ala. September 28, 2011); United States v. Alabama, No CC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS (11 th Cir. October 14, 2011); Utah Coalition of La Raza v. Shurtleff, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-401 CW (D. Utah May 11, 2011). 1 P a g e
2 conclude that the Ordinance is an impermissible regulation of immigration posing an obstacle to federal control of immigration policy. 2 Since the explicitly stated intent of HB 488 is attrition through enforcement (Section 1), this case precedent will be highly significant for any constitutional challenge to HB It appears from this decision that the Fifth Circuit takes a dim view of state and local laws designed to discourage the residence of unlawfully present persons. 4 B. GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES The Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that federal law is the supreme Law of the Land and that states are bound to uphold it. Generally, states are prevented (or preempted ) from legislating (1) in a way that defies express Congressional proscription; (2) in an area of law where Congress intends to occupy the field ; or (3) in a way that conflicts with Congressional intent. Regulation of Immigration: The [p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. 5 The determination of (1) who should be admitted into the country and (2) the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain are both direct regulations of immigration and consequently are exclusively reserved for the federal government. 6 Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches or seizures (that is, from criminal investigations or detentions that lack probable cause). 2 Villas at Parkside Partners v. Farmers Branch, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6043, *23 (5th Cir. March 21, 2012). The court also stated: The conclusion that the Ordinance determines which aliens may reside in Farmer s Branch, necessarily compels our conclusion about preemption of the ordinance as a regulation of immigration contrary to federal authority. Ibid. 3 In fact, the Fifth Circuit went so far as to say: Given the breadth of the Constitution s understanding of immigration as a domain of the federal government, state and local laws that attempt to affect aliens will, with limited exceptions, be preempted by the national interest. Ibid. at * In the Texas case, the ordinance had the intended and practical effect of making it impossible for unlawfully present persons to live in the city. Given the vagueness of the term business transaction in HB 488 and the private right it creates to sue state agencies for failure to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted, the practical effect of HB 488 may similarly make it extremely difficult or impossible for unlawfully present persons to live in Mississippi. See Part D, infra. 5 DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) (emphasis added). 6 Ibid. at 355. On the other hand, state laws addressing legitimate local interests that only indirectly touch on immigration matters are not preempted. Buquer v. Indianapolis, 797 F. Supp.2d at 920 (citing DeCanas, 424 U.S. at ). 2 P a g e
3 C. SECTION 2(2): LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MUST INVESTIGATE IMMIGRATION STATUS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES Section 2(2) systematically lays out where and when Mississippi s criminal law enforcement officers must get involved in investigating people s lawful presence: when there is reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence upon arrest; and before any arrestee is released from custody, no matter how long the individual s detention is prolonged by the attempt to verify his or her immigration status. This section further lists the documents that will provide a presumption of lawful presence and identifies acceptable methods of inquiry. But similar state laws have not had a good track record in federal court. Four out of five systematic state plans for police verification of immigration status already have been temporarily blocked (Georgia, Arizona, South Carolina and Utah). 7 The majority view is that such provisions are likely to be preempted and should be enjoined, the federal District Court of South Carolina held in December This is particularly true with respect to reasonable suspicion provisions. South Carolina, Arizona and Alabama each have reasonable suspicion provisions that mirror almost exactly that in Section 2(2); only Alabama s remains in force. 9 Arizona s provision mandating verification of 7 Georgia s HB 87 Section 8 authorizes police to verify an individual s immigration status when they have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a criminal violation; the Northern District of Georgia temporarily blocked enforcement of Section 8 because it likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court reviewing HB 87 held that Section 8 attempts an end-run around federal statutes defining the role of the state and local officers in immigration enforcement. GLAHR v. Deal, 793 F. Supp.2d at See also U.S. v. South Carolina, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *53-68; Utah Coalition of La Raza v. Shurtleff, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-401 CW (D. Utah, May 11, 2011). Arizona s SB 1070 Section 2(B) requires officers to investigate immigration status upon any lawful stop or arrest when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present and to check the immigration status of all arrested individuals before they are released from custody; the District Court of Arizona temporarily blocked enforcement of Section 2(B) because it likely violates the Supremacy Clause, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010); upheld United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011). Alabama s HB 56 Sections 12(a) and 12(b) require exactly the same thing. The Northern District of Alabama did not block Section 12 because plaintiffs did not sufficiently make a case that it was likely to violate the Supremacy Clause; the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the appeal but declined to block Section 12 on an emergency basis pending the appeal. Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al. v. Bentley, Civil Action No. 5:11-CV SLB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ala. September 28, 2011); United States v. Alabama, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-2746-SLB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ala. September 28, 2011); United States v. Alabama, No CC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS (11 th Cir. October 14, 2011). 8 U.S. v. South Carolina, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *62. 9 These sections differ in that under HB 488, investigations of status based on reasonable suspicion can only take place upon arrest, not upon any lawful stop. 3 P a g e
4 all arrested individuals before release (which is identical to that in HB 488) was also blocked. 10 Alabama federal Judge Sharon Blackburn s opinion on the constitutionality of a section almost identical to Section 2(2) is an outlier in this otherwise strong judicial trend. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of both the reasonable suspicion provision and the mandatory status check before release provision of Arizona s law. 11 Thus, we cannot fully gauge the constitutionality of HB 488 Section 2(2) until after the Supreme Court rules. Why might it be unconstitutional for a state to require its police officers to investigate immigration status upon reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence or for all arrestees? Preemption Federal judges who have reviewed state immigration enforcement laws almost universally concur that state attempts to substitute their own policy judgments on immigration enforcement for those of the federal government are constitutionally preempted. 12 Regardless of the exact scope of the authority that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants to states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, 13 it is certainly true that this statute places primary enforcement authority in the federal Executive Branch. States may not 10 South Carolina s SB 20 also has a very similar provision, but the court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs preemption claim because it decided the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge that section of the law. 11 Lyle Denniston, Another landmark ruling in the offing, SCOTUSblog (December 11, 2011) Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit said that it would not rule on the appeal until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Arizona s law. Brian Lawson, 11th Circuit won't rule on Alabama/Georgia immigration laws until after Supreme Court rules on Arizona, The Huntsville Times (Mar. 1, 2012) 12 In ruling on South Carolina s immigration enforcement law (including its reasonable suspicion provision), Judge Gergel chose particularly strong words on this issue: It is apparent to the Court from a review of the legislative debate surrounding the adoption of [SB 20] and the language of the Act itself that supporters of [SB 20] do not approve of the federal government s strategy or actions regarding immigration enforcement. These members of the General Assembly, of course, have every right to hold that opinion, but that opinion does not entitle the State of South Carolina to adopt its own immigration policy to supplant the policy of the national government. Far from seeking to cooperate with the federal enforcement strategy, they seek by [SB 20] to control immigration policy and alter it. [citations omitted] 13 Compare U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at (quoted in GLAHR v. Deal, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6960) ( Congress intended for state officers to systematically aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General to whom Congress granted discretion in determining the precise conditions and direction of each state officer s assistance. ) with U.S. v. Alabama, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *101 (quoting Judge Bea s dissent from the Ninth Circuit majority in U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F. 3d at ) ( As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens and in the identification, apprehension, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States ). 4 P a g e
5 attempt to wrest ultimate federal immigration enforcement discretion away from the Executive Branch by mandating enforcement in a whole host of circumstances. In fact, just as Arizona s SB 1070 does, HB 488 punishes state actors for cooperating with the federal government in a way that is more consistent with Executive Branch priorities than with state priorities. HB 488 punishes agencies with civil fines for adopting policies that do anything less than enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14 State assistance in the enforcement of federal immigration law must be rendered in the way Congress intended, not in a manner dictated by state law to further a state s own immigration policy. 15 Fourth Amendment Implementation of Section 2(2) will significantly burden lawfully present immigrants as well as U.S. citizens, who, if arrested, could end up being detained solely for the purposes of conducting an immigration status inquiry with the federal government, which can take up to two days to complete. 16 The federal district court in Arizona highlighted this fact when it temporarily blocked SB 1070 Section 2(B). The court took note of (but did not rule on) the potential Fourth Amendment constitutional problem with the inevitable increase in the length of detention while immigration status is determined HB 488 Section 2(8): A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in circuit court to challenge any agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that affirmatively adopts or implements a written policy, or ordinance duly spread upon its minutes that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws, including, but not limited to, 8 USCS Sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. 15 We agree that 1373(c) [of the INA] demonstrates that Congress contemplated state assistance in the identification of undocumented immigrants. We add, however, that Congress contemplated this assistance within the boundaries established in 1357(g), not in a manner dictated by a state law that furthers a state immigration policy. By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents. As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA. Arizona, 641 F. 3d at , [emphasis added]. 16 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, HICA v. Alabama, Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-02484, 200 (July 8, 2011) 17 U.S. v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp.2d at But see U.S. v. Alabama, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *124 (refusing to invalidate reasonable suspicion provision because there would be some circumstances under which an immigration status investigation would not extend an arrestee s detention yet leaving the door open to as-applied, postenforcement challenges). It should also be noted that the rather confusing language of HB 488 Section 2(11) (which attempts to shield individual law enforcement officers in certain circumstances from civil liability for arrests made pursuant to Section 2(2)) might be construed to contemplate that local officers have been given permission by Section 2(2) to make arrests solely based on probable cause that an individual is unlawfully present, in which case strong constitutional arguments could be made against both of these subsections of HB 488 as well. 5 P a g e
6 D. SECTION 3: PROHIBITION ON BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE STATE This section prevents unlawfully present individuals and anyone acting on behalf of unlawfully present individuals from engaging or attempting to engage in any business transaction with the state or a political subdivision of the state (like a city or county). In fact, this section makes it a felony to do so. Though the word business modifies the type of transaction prohibited by this section, the bill defines a business transaction as any transaction and explicitly includes interactions that have no business relation at all, like applying for non-driver identification cards. It also explicitly includes loans, grants, or credits, which expands the scope of prohibited transactions considerably. This section exempts applications for marriage licenses as well as any transaction conducted by a business executive of an international corporation authorized to transact business in the state. This section is probably unconstitutional. Three federal courts have already ruled on Alabama s similar business transactions provision; only one of the three decisions was favorable. 18 Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked Alabama s business transactions provision (Section 30 of HB 56). While the court did not provide its reasoning for blocking Section 30, the burden one must meet in order to obtain an injunction pending appeal is high: among other things, plaintiffs must establish a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim. 19 In temporarily blocking Section 30, the Eleventh Circuit contradicted the lower court s ruling that this section is a constitutionally permissible exercise of state legislative authority. 20 Why is it probably unconstitutional for a state to criminalize interactions between unlawfully present persons and state entities? Regulation of Immigration and Preemption Plaintiffs in the Alabama case argued on appeal that Section 30 is a direct regulation of immigration because its express function is to control the conditions under which immigrants can remain in Alabama by prohibiting and criminalizing immigrants efforts to engage in a wide range of transactions necessary for daily life 21 They also argued that Section 30 conflicts with 18 Central Ala. Fair Housing Center v. Magee, Civil Action No. 2:11cv982-MHT (WO), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (M.D. Ala. December 1, 2011); United States v. Alabama, Cases No CC and CC, order expanding the Oct. 14, 2011, order and enjoining the State of Alabama's enforcement of Sections 27 and 30 filed Mar. 8, U.S. v. Alabama, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20942, **19 (11 th Cir. October 14, 2011). 20 U.S. v. Alabama, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , * Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and for Expedited Appeal, U.S. v. Alabama, Case No (filed Oct. 7, 2011). 6 P a g e
7 Congressional intent because it would criminalize basic services and interactions with state agencies by individuals whom Congress has expressly permitted to remain in the United States while they are out of status but in the process of applying for humanitarian relief (such as with the U-visa provided under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act). HB 488 s business transaction provision is arguably broader than Alabama s law does not prohibit transactions related to grants, loans or credits. These grants could directly affect nonprofits, for example, that receive funding from the state to serve vulnerable populations. If HB 488 did not contemplate interactions with political subdivisions of the state like counties and cities as business transactions, many essential services provided to unlawfully present persons by local utilities, for example, would be protected. Unfortunately, the relevant House amendment does not actually exempt political subdivisions because it only removes this language from one place in the section while leaving it in other places. Even if this drafting problem is fixed, however, interactions with state entities like hospitals and courts, even notaries public who might be considered state officers, could all be prohibited. Thus, HB 488 could be interpreted to include such a wide range of interactions that the lives of unlawfully present persons would be substantially affected, which would materially impact the conditions under which such individuals can reside in Mississippi. Furthermore, section 1 of HB 488 makes clear that this is the intent. Plaintiffs arguments against Alabama s business transactions provision already seem to have won the day with the Eleventh Circuit and would likely do the same with the Fifth Circuit as well, as they appear to be fully consistent with that court s recent ruling on the Texas ordinance. E. CONCLUSION Though several of the most controversial and constitutionally questionable provisions (like those related to alien registration and public schools) have been removed, HB 488 as a package is still in legal jeopardy because it: Mandates that local officers enforce federal immigration law in a way that ignores federally-issued guidelines for discretion and will have the effect of detaining even lawfully-present immigrants and U.S. citizens for the time it takes to conduct an investigation into an individual s status (which can take up to two days); Punishes state agencies with civil fines if they adopt policies that require discretion that is more in line with federal than state priorities; Retains the business transaction provision, which may in practical effect, make it difficult or impossible for unlawfully present persons to reside in Mississippi, when the Supreme Court has said that the federal government has exclusive authority to determine the conditions under which aliens may reside in this country; and 7 P a g e
8 Announces its intention to supplant federal immigration enforcement policies with a policy of its own: attrition through enforcement. This document was prepared in April 2012 by CLINIC s State & Local Advocacy Attorney Karen Siciliano Lucas. This document provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. For questions, please contact Karen at klucas@cliniclegal.org or (202) P a g e
Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff
Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff The National Immigrant Women s Advocacy Project American University, Washington College
More informationImpact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1
Impact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1 I. Introduction By: Benish Anver and Rocio Molina February 15, 2013
More informationState of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070 Introduction In its lawsuit against the state of Arizona, the United
More informationPRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 Summary of major provisions: South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 forces all South Carolinians to carry specific forms of identification at all times
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-SRB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Valle del Sol, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Michael B. Whiting, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0-0-PHX-SRB
More informationCase 2:11-cv SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02746-SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2011 Sep-30 PM 03:17 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dcb Document Filed 0// Page of MICHAEL G. RANKIN City Attorney Michael W.L. McCrory Principal Assistant City Attorney P.O. Box Tucson, AZ - Telephone: (0 - State Bar PCC No. Attorneys for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :0-cv-0-SRB Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 United States of America, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of
More informationARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES, No In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-182 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- ARIZONA, et al., v. UNITED STATES, Petitioners, Respondent. -------------------------- --------------------------
More informationFacts About Federal Preemption
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER Facts About Federal Preemption How to analyze whether state and local initiatives are an unlawful attempt to enforce federal immigration law or regulate immigration Introduction
More informationFederal Circuit Courts Split on Validity of Anti-Immigrant Housing Ordinances
Census population data. The final Act continues that practice until the end of the fiscal year. Significantly, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (commonly known as the Farm Bill ) 15 goes further by maintaining
More informationState Restrictions on Public Benefits An Analysis of Mississippi s SB 2231 (2012)
State Restrictions on Public Benefits An Analysis of Mississippi s SB 2231 (2012) Many states are considering bills that restrict access to public benefits based on the ability to document citizenship
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 74 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 24 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION CENTRAL ALABAMA FAIR ) HOUSING CENTER,
More informationAnalysis of Recent Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Oklahoma *
Analysis of Recent Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Oklahoma * The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (H.B. 1804) was signed into law by Governor Brad Henry on May 7, 2007. 1 Among its many
More informationArizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement
Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Actg Section Research Manager/ Legislative Attorney September 10,
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES,
No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARIZONA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationAnalysis of Arizona s Border Security Law. July 6, Summary
MEMORANDUM Analysis of Arizona s Border Security Law July 6, 2010 Summary Although critics of the Arizona law dealing with border security and illegal immigration have protested and filed federal lawsuits,
More informationORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 DATE FILED: March 19, 2018 11:58 PM CASE NUMBER: 2018CV30549 Plaintiffs: Saul Cisneros, Rut Noemi Chavez Rodriguez,
More informationF I L E D March 21, 2012
Case: 10-10751 Document: 00511796125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 21, 2012 Lyle
More informationCase 2:11-cv IPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02746-IPJ Document 1 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 45 FILED 2011 Aug-01 PM 03:10 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationState and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The Arizona Experiment
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. 2010 Annual Conference Orlando, FL Oct. 25th State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law The Arizona Experiment Beverly Ginn, Edwards & Ginn
More informationOVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS OF ALABAMA S IMMIGRATION LAW
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS OF ALABAMA S IMMIGRATION LAW October 21, 2011 Alabama s new comprehensive immigration law, the Beason- Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, was enacted on June
More informationAlabama's Immigration Law: Version 2.0 And How It Impacts Employers
Alabama's Immigration Law: Version 2.0 And How It Impacts Employers Jenna M. Bedsole Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC Wells Fargo Tower 420 North 20th Street, Suite 1600 Birmingham, Alabama
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
Case :-cv-0-nvw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Tony West Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch Varu Chilakamarri
More informationINDIANA STATE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION
Introduction: INDIANA STATE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION Tips for Law Enforcement and Advocates Working With Immigrant Crime Victims Senate Enrolled Act 590, Senate Bill No. 590 September 23, 2013 By: Andrea
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 358 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 14 Michael Napier, State Bar No. 002603 James Abdo, State Bar No. 013731 NAPIER, ABDO, COURY & BAILLIE, P.C. 2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle,
More informationNACo analysis: potential county impacts of the executive order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
February 22, 2017 NACo analysis: potential county impacts of the executive order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States On January 25, President Trump signed an executive order
More informationBeason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act (HB56 & HB658) An Overview of Alabama s Immigration Law
Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer & Citizen Protection Act (HB56 & HB658) An Overview of Alabama s Immigration Law Jay E. Town Assistant District Attorney Madison County D.A. s Office Background June 9, 2011:
More informationGEORGIA STATE IMMIGRANTION LEGISLATION Tips for Law Enforcement and Advocates Working With Immigrant Crime Victims
GEORGIA STATE IMMIGRANTION LEGISLATION Tips for Law Enforcement and Advocates Working With Immigrant Crime Victims HB 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, 13-10-90. Introduction:
More informationNos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal: 12-1099 Doc: 92 Filed: 03/12/2013 Pg: 1 of 63 Nos. 12-1096, 12-1099, 12-2514, 12-2533 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationUtah s Immigration Legislation: A Closer Look at Utah's New Laws to Employ Immigrant Workers
Utah s Immigration Legislation: A Closer Look at Utah's New Laws to Employ Immigrant Workers By: Natalia Ricardo and Karen Herrling On March 15, 2011, Governor Gary Herbert of Utah signed into law three
More informationState Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070
State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 S 1 SENATE BILL 604. Short Title: NC Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. (Public) April 19, 2011
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 S 1 SENATE BILL 0 Short Title: NC Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Senators East; Allran, Brock, and Hise. Rules and Operations
More informationHOW TO DEFUND ABORTION GIANTS
HOW TO DEFUND ABORTION GIANTS In recent years, several states have passed laws that attempt to defund abortion giants like Planned Parenthood and similar abortion facilities, both directly and indirectly.
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 1 HOUSE BILL 63. Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of (Public)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION H 1 HOUSE BILL Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Warren, Collins, Jordan, and Adams (Primary Sponsors).
More informationMemorandum. Florida County Court Clerks. National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida. Date: December 23, 2014
Memorandum To: From: Florida County Court Clerks National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality Florida Date: December 23, 2014 Re: Duties of Florida County Court Clerks Regarding Issuance of Marriage
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Case 2:13-cv-00079-WKW-CSC Document 43 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JANE DOE #1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICH HOBSON,
More informationForeign Nationals & Immigration Issues
Foreign Nationals & Immigration Issues 16 th Annual Municipal Prosecutors Conference Addison, Texas March 5, 2009 A Look Ahead 1. Vienna Convention 2. ICE Holds 3. Illegal Status (Entry v. Presence) 4.
More informationA comparison of 2006 Colorado immigration reform legislation to. The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act [ SB 529]
A comparison of 2006 Colorado immigration reform legislation to The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act [ SB 529] Summary of 2006 Colorado bills * Senate Bill 110 (Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle
More information3 By Representatives Hammon, Collins, Patterson, Rich, Nordgren, 4 Merrill, Treadaway, Johnson (R), Roberts, Henry, Bridges,
1 HB56 2 128074-6 3 By Representatives Hammon, Collins, Patterson, Rich, Nordgren, 4 Merrill, Treadaway, Johnson (R), Roberts, Henry, Bridges, 5 Gaston, Johnson (K), Chesteen, Sanderford, Williams (D),
More informationKansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014
K a n s a s L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014 I-1 Identification and Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration and Voting Ethics and Elections
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 2 HOUSE BILL 63 Committee Substitute Favorable 3/14/17
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION H HOUSE BILL Committee Substitute Favorable // Short Title: Citizens Protection Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: February, 1 1 1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
More informationCase 3:15-cr EMC Document 83 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case :-cr-00-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BAIRES-REYES, Defendant. Case No. -cr-00-emc- ORDER
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-806 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF ARIZONA
More informationAuthority of State and Local Officers to Arrest Aliens Suspected of Civil Infractions of Federal Immigration Law
I. Introduction Authority of State and Local Officers to Arrest Aliens Suspected of Civil Infractions of Federal Immigration Law This memorandum addresses the legal authority of state and local law enforcement
More informationState Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation
State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney December 31, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov
More informationSUMMARY. The Dept. of Economic Security must verify the immigration status of applicants for child welfare services and certain other public benefits.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 2005 State Legislation Restricting Benefits for Immigrants or Promoting State and Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws December 14, 2005 AL HB 452 Would amend the state
More informationImmigrant Caregivers:
Immigrant Caregivers: The Implications of Immigration Status on Foster Care Licensure August 2017 INTRODUCTION All foster parents seeking to care for children in the custody of child welfare agencies must
More informationCity of El Cenizo, Texas, et al v. State of Texas Doc. 79 Att. 1
City of El Cenizo, Texas, et al v. State of Texas Doc. 79 Att. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION City of El Cenizo, Texas, et al. Plaintiffs,
More informationBackground on the Trump Administration Executive Orders on Immigration
Background on the Trump Administration Executive Orders on Immigration The following document provides background information on President Trump s Executive Orders, as well as subsequent directives regarding
More informationSTATE OMNIBUS BILLS AND LAWS January 1 June 30, 2011
State Chamber Bill # Status Title Summary AL H 56 Enacted This law addresses a range of topics including law enforcement, employment, education, public benefits, harbor/transport/rental housing, voting
More informationOverview of HB David Blatt Director of Public Policy Oklahoma Policy Institute
Overview of HB 1804 David Blatt Director of Public Policy Oklahoma Policy Institute dblatt@okpolicy.org www.okpolicy.org 918-382-3228 1 Overview of HB 1804 HB 1804 was introduced and passed during the
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF COLORADO, Petitioner, v. BERNARDINO FUENTES-ESPINOZA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court PETITION FOR
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12- In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ALABAMA AND ROBERT BENTLEY, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for
More informationAuthority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law
Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney August 17, 2011 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for
More informationIN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationArizona Anti-Immigrant Law: SB 1070
Arizona Passes Harsh Anti-Immigrant Law By Karen A. Herrling In his Sunday blog, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angles described the recently enacted Arizona law as the country s most retrogressive, mean-spirited,
More informationHB In-State Tuition
Immigrant Advocacy Washington Community & Technical College Counselors Association Rainbow Lodge Retreat Center, North Bend, WA Spring 2015 Conference ~ April 27, 2015 HB 1079 In-State Tuition What is
More informationState Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070
State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public Law Yule Kim Legislative Attorney May
More informationSAMPLE RESPONSE TO OJP REQUEST FOR 8 USC 1373 CERTIFICATION
SAMPLE RESPONSE TO OJP REQUEST FOR 8 USC 1373 CERTIFICATION The following is a sample response to a letter that the Office of Justice Programs sent to nine jurisdictions requiring certification of compliance
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-884 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ALABAMA AND ROBERT BENTLEY, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition
More informationState Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070
State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public
More informationHISPANIC INTEREST COALITION OF ALABAMA, ET AL. Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, ET AL., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 11-14535-CC and No. 11-14675 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT HISPANIC INTEREST COALITION OF ALABAMA, ET AL. Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, ET AL., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano
PRACTICE ADVISORY April 21, 2011 Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DEFENDANTS I. INTRODUCTION
The Honorable Richard A. Jones IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 CITY OF SEATTLE, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. No. -cv-00raj BRIEF OF
More informationCase 1:14-cv JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:14-cv-00097-JRH-BKE Document 17-1 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION HENRY D. HOWARD, et al., v. Plaintiffs, AUGUSTA-RICHMOND
More informationIN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-71 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase 3:06-cv Document 153 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:06-cv-02371 Document 153 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION VILLAS AT PARKSIDE PARTNERS d/b/a VILLAS AT PARKSIDE, et al.,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-884 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF ALABAMA
More informationImplementation of the California Values Act (SB 54) and Legal Issues with Immigration Detainers
VIA U.S. MAIL January 26, 2018 Secretary Scott Kernan California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 1515 S Street Sacramento, CA 95811 RE: Implementation of the California Values Act (SB 54)
More informationMEMORANDUM. Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators. Compliance with federal detainer warrants. Date February 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM To re Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators Compliance with federal detainer warrants Date February 14, 2017 From Thomas Mitchell, NYSSA Counsel Introduction At the 2017 Sheriffs Winter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-05448-EDL Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : RICKY R. FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv TWT
Case: 11-13044 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 1 of 33 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13044 D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01804-TWT GEORGIA LATINO ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN
More informationGREENBERG TRAURIG MEMORANDUM. Fred Baggett, Esq. John Londot, Esq. Hope Keating, Esq. Michael Moody, Esq. Date: December 15, 2014
GREENBERG TRAURIG MEMORANDUM To: From: FACC Fred Baggett, Esq. John Londot, Esq. Hope Keating, Esq. Michael Moody, Esq. Re: Addendum to July 1, 2014 Memorandum Background On July 1, 2014 our firm provided
More informationCase 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 1 of 18
Case 4:16-cv-03745 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/28/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) LUCAS LOMAS, ) CARLOS EALGIN, ) On behalf
More informationNOTICES. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l]
NOTICES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 96-l] Department of Public Welfare; Enforceability of Durational Residency and Citizenship Requirement of Act 1996-35 December 9, 1996 Honorable
More informationCase 2:11-cv MHT-CSC Document 70 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:11-cv-00982-MHT-CSC Document 70 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 13 CENTRAL ALABAMA FAIR HOUSING CENTER; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION FAIR HOUSING
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-182 In The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA and JANICE K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
More informationSenate Bill SECTION 1. The Legislature finds that when illegal immigrants have been
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE 2008 Regular Session To: Judiciary, Division A By: Senator(s) Watson, McDaniel, Yancey Senate Bill 2988 (As Sent to Governor) AN ACT TO CREATE THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
More informationState Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070
State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public
More informationState of Indiana Lake County Court. Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief
State of Indiana Lake County Court Jeff Nicholson, Douglas Grimes, Greg Serbon, and Cheree Calabro, Plaintiffs v. City of Gary, Indiana; City of Gary Common Council; Herbert Smith, Jr., Rebecca L. Wyatt,
More informationEagle versus Phoenix: A Tale of Federalism
South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business Volume 7 Issue 1 Fall Article 5 1-1-2010 Eagle versus Phoenix: A Tale of Federalism Samuel L. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scjilb
More informationStatus of Partial-Birth Abortion Bans July 20, 2017
Status of Partial-Birth Abortion Bans July 20, 2017 ---Currently in Effect ---Enacted prior to Gonzales States with Laws Currently in Effect States with Laws Enacted Prior to the Gonzales Decision Arizona
More informationCHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal
CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. Chief Justice Earl Warren OVERVIEW The power to determine who
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THE CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH,
More informationl_132_ nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No
132nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No. 228 2017-2018 A B I L L To amend sections 9.68, 307.932, 2307.601, 2901.05, 2901.09, 2923.12, 2923.126, 2923.16, 2953.37, 5321.01, and 5321.13 and
More informationThe Arizona Immigration Law: What It Actually Does, and Why It Is Constitutional
No. 1173 Delivered October 1, 2010 December 3, 2010 The Arizona Immigration Law: What It Actually Does, and Why It Is Constitutional Kris W. Kobach Abstract: America has arrived at a dangerous, unprecedented
More informationNovember 20, Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. R. Gil Kerlikowske Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Homeland Security November 20, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas S. Winkowski Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement R. Gil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Brown et al v. Herbert et al Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION KODY BROWN, MERI BROWN, JANELLE BROWN, CHRISTINE BROWN, ROBYN SULLIVAN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
More information2017 CO 98. No. 13SC128 Fuentes-Espinoza v. People Alien Smuggling Field Preemption Conflict Preemption.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationLOCAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION : GENERAL GUIDELINES
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL OF GENERAL ORDERS General Order: 45.01 Effective: DRAFT Number of Pages: 4 LOCAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION : GENERAL GUIDELINES A. The purpose
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 4: 15-CV-0170-HLM ORDER
Case 4:15-cv-00170-HLM Document 28 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION MAURICE WALKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
More informationCase 3:17-cv PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION
Case 3:17-cv-00179-PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. EP-17-CV-00179-PRM-LS
More informationCase 3:06-cv Document 81 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:06-cv-02371 Document 81 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION VILLAS AT PARKSIDE PARTNERS d/b/a VILLAS AT PARKSIDE, et al.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Ruben L. Iñiguez Assistant Federal Public Defender ruben_iniguez@fd.org Stephen R. Sady, OSB #81099 Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender steve_sady@fd.org 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, Oregon
More information1 SB By Senators Orr and Holley. 4 RFD: Governmental Affairs. 5 First Read: 13-FEB-18. Page 0
1 SB318 2 192523-5 3 By Senators Orr and Holley 4 RFD: Governmental Affairs 5 First Read: 13-FEB-18 Page 0 1 SB318 2 3 4 ENROLLED, An Act, 5 Relating to consumer protection; to require certain 6 entities
More informationCase 2:18-cv JAM-KJN Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 18
Case :-cv-000-jam-kjn Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General MCGREGOR SCOTT United States Attorney AUGUST FLENTJE Special Counsel WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director EREZ
More informationHOUSE BILL 2162 AN ACT
Conference Engrossed State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session HOUSE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS -0 AND -0, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING SECTION -,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:05-cv-01100-MHT-DRB Document 22 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 11 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION YVONNE KENNEDY, JAMES ) BUSKEY & WILLIAM
More information