Supreme Court deals blow to Southeast Asians' fight against deportation

Art Lien / SCOTUSBLOG

The ACLU's Cecilia Wang argued on behalf of the respondents in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

ASAM NEWS

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday (Mar. 29) gave the Donald Trump administration broader powers to rearrest immigrants for past crimes and hold them indefinitely, even if they already served their time and have already been released from prison, reports the Hill.

The 5-4 ruling by the conservative majority court comes at a time Southeast Asian refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia have been increasingly detained for past crimes committed when they were youths. In recent months, many have been deported back to Cambodia and Vietnam.

The ruling overturns the earlier decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Speaking for the majority in response to the 9th Circuit, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion, “Four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

According to Politico, among the plaintiffs in the case was Mony Preap, a green card holder whose family fled the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. 

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” said Justice Stephen Breyer for the minority.

The dissenters which included Justices  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focused on “the ordinary meaning of the statute’s language, the statute’s structure, and the relevant canons of interpretation” in agreement with the lower court's decision. 

They concluded with a practical point about the meaning of “when … released.” The term “when” need not mean immediately upon release. Detention simply must occur “within a reasonable time after [the immigrant’s] release from custody” – which the dissenters defined as a “presumptive 6-month limit.”

In Preap's case, he was detained without a bond hearing on two marijuana convictions seven years earlier after just serving a sentence for battery.

The SCOTUS ruling set up a possible challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory-detention law in the future. “I fear,” wrote Breyer that Tuesday’s ruling “will work serious harm to the principles for which American law has long stood” — principles that say that, as a rule, the government can’t detain anyone indefinitely without showing cause and that people who have served criminal sentences can’t be summarily reimprisoned for the same crime."

Civil rights advocates also joined in the dissent.

“The right to due process is a principle that is core to this country, and stripping that basic right away from immigrants, including Southeast Asian Americans who have already long served their time, is not just shameful and anti-American — it is wrong,” Quyen Dinh, executive director of Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) said to AsAmNews. “We call on Congress to right the failings of the Supreme Court and work to fix the injustices of our current broken immigration system.”

Aarti Kohli, Executive Director of Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, said the ruling “blatantly ignores the language of the 1996 mandatory detention law and grossly expands the government’s ability to detain without due process.”

“This decision in favor of the government’s sweeping interpretation of the law goes far beyond Congress’ original intent and marks a serious threat to civil liberties in this country,” she said. “As a result, thousands of immigrants will be subject to mandatory imprisonment without the fundamental due process protections that form the backbone of our nation’s ideals and justice system.”

“For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang. “We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system.”

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to circumvent court process over DACA

THIS IS A GOOD MORNING! The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning (Feb. 26) that DACA will remain in effect. Donald Trump's arbitrary deadline of March 5 is thus null and void.

Time to celebrate? Yes! But then it is back to work. The fight over the legality of the Obama-era Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program isn't over.

The High Court turned down an attempt by the Trump administration to skip over the appeals process and go directly to the Justices to keep the March 5 deadline in effect.

By rejecting that effort, the case goes back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where the legal process could take up months before a verdict is rendered. It could be year before  the Department of Justice can reappeal to the Supreme Court, where the conservative justices still hold the majority.

Massachusetts Attorney General Erick Schneiderman issued this Tweet:

In the meantime, the 700,000 to 800,000 DACA participants, young people who were brought into the U.S. by their undocumented parents, can breathe a sigh of relief. The month of March won't be the end of their world, after all.

The vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico. But there are also thousands of people from China, India, South Korea and the Philippines who would lose their protection and may be deported.

The SCOTUS ruling allows Dreamers to continue to renew their DACA status but new applications are still not being accepted.

Trump's administration had taken the unusual step of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court a January 9 nationwide injunction by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that the DACA program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.

Alsup ruled that the challengers, including the states of California, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota and Obama's former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration's decision to end DACA was arbitrary.

In issuing his temporary order, which extends the DACA protection while the lawsuit goes forward, Alsup said the "public interest" would be served by keeping the program in place. The judge pointed to Trump tweets that suggested he actually supported DACA. A September tweet read: "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really! ... ."

Alsup wrote: "We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the chief executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended."

On February 13, a second US judge issued a similar injunction ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn ruled in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs including a group of states led by New York.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah issued the following statement after the Supreme Court’s decision:

The DACA program — which provides work permits and myriad government benefits to illegal immigrants en masse — is clearly unlawful. The district judge’s decision unilaterally to re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process. We look forward to having this case expeditiously heard by the appeals court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail.

The SCOTUS action leaves open the possibility that the justices could consider the San Francisco case after the 9th Circuit appeals court hears it.

Trump repealed Obama's executive order creating the DACA program last September hoping that Congress would find a legislative solution to the Dreamers situation and gave the U.S. Senate until March 5 to fix it.

Congress was unable to find a bipartisan solution and found itself mired in the broader question of immigration reform. They left the DACA question unresolved by rejecting two bipartisan proposals, a conservative counterproposal and Trump's own immigration reform plan before they recessed for a week. They return this week to renew the debate.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan told reporters earlier this month that the March 5 deadline was “not as important as it was before, given the court rulings.” However, he said, “I think this place works better with deadlines, and we want to operate on deadlines.”

________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court allows Trump Muslim ban implementation; appeals court to hear challenges

NAPAWF

Donald Trump's Muslim bans sparked protests. Above, members of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum marched in front of the Fourth District Court in Maryland.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump's controversial Muslim ban to go into effect.

The third version of the controversial travel ban prohibits people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. 

However, the temporary victory for Trump was not an endorsement of the proposed travel restrictions, notes the ACLU. The court ruling merely stayed the lower court orders that prevented the executive order from being implemented while the lawsuits against the travel ban make their way through the lower courts.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, had this reaction:

"President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter. It's unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones. We will be arguing Friday in the Fourth Circuit that the ban should ultimately be struck down."

Seven of the justices ruled in favor of the administration while two — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — said the partial stay on the ban should continue.

The court did not give a reason for its decision. However, the travel ban could still be found unconstitutional as the lawsuits against the ban make their way to the Supreme Court.

Two appeals courts, the 9th and 4th circuits, are scheduled to hear arguments this week in separate cases that were filed in Hawaii and Maryland challenging the travel ban.

Among the issues raised by challengers was whether the travel ban discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. The same arguments are being used against the new ban.

The travel ban — the third one Trump has issued — bars most travelers from eight countries — Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Six are Muslim-majority nations.

Two Asian/American judges, Theodore Chuang of  Maryland and Derrick Watson of Hawaii had blocked the third version of the travel ban from being enforced.

RELATED:

• Court stymies implementation of Trump travel ban
• Second U.S. district court denies Trump travel ban

The Supreme Court's decision Monday essentially throws out a compromise that exempted foreign nationals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship with someone in the United States, including grandparents, brothers- and sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles and cousins.

"This decision ignores the very real human consequences to American citizens and their families abroad imposed by President Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0," said Lena Masri, national director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court dismisses one case vs Trump travel ban

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, with a conservative majority, is going to haunt America's march into the 21st century for decades to come.

As expected the High Court dismissed one of the challenges to Donald Trump's attempts to impose a Muslim ban. The justices ruled that the complaint was moot because the administration had replaced the travel ban with a new version that included two non-Muslim countries.

On Sept. 24, the Trump administration replaced the temporary travel ban on six predominantly Muslim countries with new restrictions that included the countries of North Korea and Venezuela.

The decision basically dismisses the ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit of Maryland. The complaint that came out of Hawaii via the 9th Circuit is still pending but it is expected SCOTUS will issue a similar ruling.

Hawaii asked a federal judge in Honolulu Tuesday (Oct. 10) for permission to challenge the newest version of the Trump's travel ban, scheduled to go into effect Oct. 17. 

Hawaii said the latest ban, like the earlier versions, is unconstitutional. It will also harm the state’s tourism industry, prevent the University of Hawaii from recruiting qualified individuals and undermine its refugee resettlement program.

The latest attempt to restrict travel to the U.S. issued Sept. 24, limits or bans entry into the U.S. from eight countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. It supersedes a ban that had affected six mostly Muslim countries and is indefinite, while the previous travel ban was for only 90 days.

The Island State is challenging the president’s “continuing efforts to impose a sweeping policy banning the entry of refugees and nationals of Muslim-majority countries,” according to the proposed amended complaint, which seeks to block the executive order from taking effect.

________________________________________________________________________________

Court: Travel ban legality still up in the air; in the meantime, some restrictions will be allowed

The Supreme Court Monday breathed some life into Donald Trumps Muslim ban.

THE SUPREME COURT agreed Monday morning (June 26) to review Donald Trump's controversial executive order restricting travelers and refugees from entering the U.S. 

The court then allowed a watered down Trump's Muslim ban to go into effect by opening the door to the majority of travelers from the six targeted Muslim countries - family members, students, foreign employees, lecturers and business travelers. That includes refugees who are usually sponsored by a church or other human rights organization.

“Almost anyone coming to the U.S. who has a visa or who has been in the refugee program has some kind of tie to a U.S. person,” said Becca Heller, executive director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

It is far from the "victory" claimed by a White House desperate for a "win" after being stymied by the courts and a Congress immobilized by infighting.  Two federal courts ruled that the Muslim ban was unconstitutional and questioned Trump's authority to order travel restrictions had ordered stays on Trump's executive orders.

"Most of the people who stood to be affected by the ban will still be allowed to come in," said Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "So you know, I think it's significant that the court decided to take - to allow only this limited portion of the ban to move forward at this time. And of course, you know, the ultimate question about whether any of this is lawful or constitutional at remains to be decided. And all the court so far that have looked at it have - you know, there's kind of an overwhelming consensus among the courts that this cannot withstand that sort of scrutiny."

The Supreme Court voted unanimously to hear arguments for and against the travel ban during their next term which begins the first Monday of October. Historically, the court issues decisions in the spring. By then, the 90-120 day "pause" that the executive order asked for will be over and the court might just say the question is moot.

Despite the ACLU's assurances, that didn't stop travel ban opponents from expressing their concern.

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court ignores the anti-Muslim bigotry that is at the heart of the travel ban executive orders and will inevitably embolden Islamophobes in the administration to expand efforts to target the Muslim community with unconstitutional and counterproductive policies," said a statement from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). "It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus."

"The administration’s Muslim ban foments disturbing trends of anti-Muslim sentiments within the U.S. and abroad," agreed the Asian Americans Advancing Justice. "The Supreme Court should not have allowed any part of the Muslim ban to move forward while this executive order is under review.

"The Muslim ban restrains travel and freedom of movement for the communities affected without a rational basis. Any attempt to limit travel based on religion or country of origin is an egregious attack on the Constitution," says the AAAJ.

"From the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II to the Muslim ban today, xenophobia has fanned the flames of fear and hatred, driving immigration policy in irrational ways."

Although disappointed that the court allowed part of the ban to be implemented, Rep. Judy Chu, chair of the Congruessional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said the real important decision will be inte court's next term. 

"The circuit courts, relying on President Trump’s own tweets, public statements during the campaign and the transition, and his conversations with his advisors, have established that the President acted in order to ban followers of the Muslim faith from entering our country," said Chu. "The decision today does not address these facts, but I am confident that when the Court reviews the merits of the challenge against the Muslim ban it will find that it violates both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution.”

The court's decision on the partial implementation won't be implemented until Thursday when demonstrations might occur at the airports as they did when the first travel ban was announced. 

"Reinstating any part of this ban could create chaos in the nation’s airports and tear families apart,” Margaret Huang, Amnesty International’s executive director, said in a statement.

"The religious intolerance and racial discrimination that the administration continues to unabashedly display in its rhetoric and policy is not only disgusting but is a direct attack on our nation’s core values,” said Johanna Puno Hester, APALA National President and Assistant Executive Director of the United Domestic Workers, AFSCME Local 3930, 

The ruling negated any thought that Justice Neil Gorsuch, might moderate his views once he took his seat on the Supreme Court. He joined the right wing cohort of justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who thought the entire ban should be put into effect.

“With Gorsuch rounding out the Supreme Court, these rulings will have a tremendous, far-reaching impact on millions of people both nationwide and abroad,” said Alvina Yeh, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance.  “That’s why our fight for immigrant and refugee communities continues despite whatever decision the Supreme Court rules in the fall. Our fight goes beyond holding elected officials accountable; it extends to protecting the very people in our families, friends, and communities from hate and discrimination.”

AAPI senators opposed Gorsuch nomination; Harris lists reason for her 'nay' vote

SCREEN CAPTURE/CSPAN

California's Sen. Kamala Harris speaks against Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY that the U.S. Senate will approve the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch Friday (April 6) for the the Supreme Court after the Republican majority invoked the so-called nuclear option that requires only a majority vote instead of 60 votes for passage.

However, the expected approval for Gorsuch doesn't change the fact that the super-conservative judge will probably be put in position to alter the direction of the United States law for decades to come, perhaps undoing the precedents set into law since the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

UPDATE: As expected, Gorsuch was confirmed Friday morning, 54 to 45. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) were the only Democrats who voted with Republicans to support President Donald Trump’s court pick. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) missed the vote.

“Today, Senate Republicans destroyed a process that has been in place for years to accomplish their goal of confirming a far-right Supreme Court Justice,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

“Last year, they wouldn’t even give President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland a hearing. And today, they changed the rules in order to ram through a nominee who cannot garner even 60 votes to sit on the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch would preserve the 5-4 conservative majority on the Roberts Court that favors corporate interests over individual rights.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, said in a statement she had shared concerns with Gorsuch’s “predilection for putting corporate profits ahead of people time and again,” and called his history on civil, disability and reproductive rights—as well as other issues—“troubling.”

“Judge Gorsuch had several opportunities to explain himself, his past positions and his judicial philosophy, but he did not. Earning a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires much more than a genial demeanor and an ability to artfully dodge even the most pointed of questions. In his four days of confirmation hearings, Judge Gorsuch did not show any ability to alleviate my concerns. I cannot vote to confirm him,” Duckworth’s statement reads.

CSPAN

Judge Neil Gorsuch dodges questions during Senate hearings.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif, the first Indian/American woman elected to the upper chamber, was among the women who spoke against Gorsuch's nomination.

During her speech, she drew on her own personal experience as a beneficiary of affirmative action and blasted his positions in favor of corporations over ordinary Americans.

“You see, almost two decades after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, California public schools," said the first-term Senator and former Attorney General for Calfironia. "If that Court had ruled differently, I likely would not have become a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a district attorney, or the Attorney General of California. And I certainly would not be standing here today as a United States Senator.”

She cites the case of Grace Hwang, who sued her university for refusing to grant her medical leave even though she had cancer. Gorsuch voted in favor of the university.

A full transcript of her speech is below:

Mr. President, across the street from this chamber stands the United States Supreme Court. And above its doors are the words, “Equal Justice Under Law.”

As senators, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure that every man and woman who sits on that Court upholds our ideals and that ideal.

As a United States Senator, I take that responsibility extremely seriously.

You see, almost two decades after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, California public schools.

If that Court had ruled differently, I likely would not have become a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a district attorney, or the Attorney General of California. And I certainly would not be standing here today as a United States Senator.

I know from personal experience just how profoundly the Court’s decisions touch every aspect of Americans’ lives.

And for that reason, I rise to join my colleagues in strong opposition to the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court.

RELATED: AAPI legal group deeply troubled by Gorsuch

As you know, Judge Gorsuch went through 4 days of hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And here’s what we learned.

We learned that Judge Gorsuch refused to answer the most basic of questions. He initially even refused to share his views on Brown v. Board of Education.

We learned that Judge Gorsuch has a deeply conservative worldview.

And we learned that Judge Gorsuch interprets the law in a theoretical bubble, completely detached from the real world. As he puts it, “focusing backward, not forward.”

If Judge Gorsuch joins the United States Supreme Court, his narrow approach would do real harm to real people—especially the women of America.

America deserves a Supreme Court Justice who will protect a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own health. Judge Gorsuch won’t.

Judge Gorsuch carefully avoided speaking about abortion. But he’s clearly demonstrated a hostility to women’s access to healthcare.

Last year, when the court he sits on sided with Planned Parenthood, Judge Gorsuch took the highly unusual step of asking the court to hear the case again.

Judge Gorsuch determined that a 13-thousand-person for-profit corporation was entitled to exercise the same religious beliefs as a person. That meant the company did not have to provide employees birth control coverage and could impose the company’s religious beliefs on all of its female employees.

I ask my colleagues: why does Judge Gorsuch seem to believe that corporations deserve full rights and protections, but women don’t?

As we mark Equal Pay Day today, Americans deserve a Supreme Court Justice who will protect the rights of women in the workplace. Judge Gorsuch won’t.

In employment discrimination cases, Judge Gorsuch has consistently sided with companies against their employees.

These employees include women like Betty Pinkerton. The facts of the case were undisputed. Her boss repeatedly asked her about her sexual habits and breast size and invited her to his home—then fired her when she reported his sexual harassment.

Judge Gorsuch ruled against Betty.

Why? Well part of this justification that he offered was that she waited two months before reporting the harassment.

Americans deserve a Supreme Court Justice who upholds the rights of all women—including transgender women. Judge Gorsuch won’t.

When a transgender inmate claimed that the prison’s practice of starting and stopping her hormone treatment was a violation of her rights, Judge Gorsuch disagreed.

As the National Women’s Law Center observed, “Judge Gorsuch’s record reveals a troubling pattern of narrowly approaching the legal principles upon which every day women across the nation rely.”

They write that his appointment, “would mean a serious setback for women in this country and for generations to come.”

But judging by his record, if Judge Gorsuch becomes Justice Gorsuch, women won’t be the only ones facing setbacks.

Take Luke, a young boy with autism, whose parents sought financial assistance after switching him from public school to a school specializing in autism education.

Judge Gorsuch ruled that the minimal support Luke received in public school was good enough.

People in the autism community were up in arms. And in the middle of his Senate hearing two weeks ago, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Judge Gorsuch was wrong on the law.

Or consider Alphonse Maddin. Maddin was a trucker who got stuck on the road in sub-zero temperatures—minus-27 degrees, as he recalls—and abandoned his trailer to seek help and save his life.

For leaving the trailer, he was fired. Judge Gorsuch wrote that the company was entitled to fire Maddin for not enduring the cold and for not staying in his freezing truck.

Then there’s Grace Hwang, a professor diagnosed with cancer. She sued when her university refused to provide the medical leave her doctor recommended.

Judge Gorsuch called the university’s decision “reasonable” and rejected her lawsuit. Sadly, Grace died last summer.

Mr. President, Judge Gorsuch has an Ivy League credential. But his record shows that he lacks sound judgment to uphold justice.

He ignores the complexities of human beings—the humiliating sting of harassment, the fear of a cancer patient or a worker who feels his life’s in danger. In short, his rulings lack a basic sense of empathy.

Judge Gorsuch understands the text of the law, to be sure.

But he has repeatedly failed to show that he fully understands those important words - “Equal Justice Under Law.”

For the highest court in the land, I say let’s find someone who does.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

###

AAPI legal group cites Gorsuch's 'troubling' stance on racial bias

THE ASIAN AMERICAN Justice Center issued the following statement on selection of Neil Gorsuch as nominee for U.S. Supreme Court :

"Advancing Justice strongly opposes the President's nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States . Neil Gorsuch's troubling record on issues of racial discrimination, police brutality, equal protection for LGBTQ Americans, and his hostility toward women's reproductive rights raises grave concerns regarding his ability to be open-minded, fair, and guided by the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

"We demand and expect Congress to do its job and constitutional duty to evaluate Gorsuch's ability to uphold the law fairly for all.

" Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution and play an indispensable role in our democracy. The American public expects the Supreme Court to uphold the value that every individual should receive equal justice under the law. Any nominee, who will serve for a lifetime on this Court, must put aside partisan ideology to dispense equal justice.

"As President Trump continues to issue executive orders and others stand ready to challenge those orders in our courts of law, the American people need to know they have a fair and independent Supreme Court whose decisions will affect us now and many years into the future."