Erickson Immigration Group’s Post

We have great news to share! An Iowa federal court recently issued a temporary injunction blocking SF 2340, described as one of Iowa's most extensive and severe immigration laws to date. An injunction is a court order requiring a person or, in this case, a government agency to do or cease doing a specific action. A temporary injunction of a law means that the executive branch cannot enforce that law. Meaning, the Iowa executive branch cannot enforce SF 2340. The court's decision was prompted by a federal lawsuit filed by the American Immigration Council, in collaboration with the ACLU of Iowa and the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, challenging the law's constitutionality. SF 2340, if implemented, would have empowered Iowa law enforcement to arrest, detain, and deport individuals lawfully residing in the U.S., a measure deemed unconstitutional by the court. Despite this positive development, concerns persist as similar legislative efforts in states like Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma threaten to exacerbate hardship for immigrant communities, highlighting ongoing challenges in safeguarding immigrant rights within the legal framework. For more details, please direct to our company blog page. https://lnkd.in/gqBgJYd9

Just wrapped reading Jarkesy and largely agree that Immigration Courts, OCAHO under 274A and 274B aren't susceptible to this particular challenge (the arguments raised in other litigation were not addressed in Jarkesy), but what does Jarkesy mean for 274C proceedings? Really interested to hear others' thoughts; it would be interesting to see the interplay of the public rights exception and immigration law. 274C at its heart is about fraud and material misrepresentation, which was core to the decision in Jarkesy.

Big Supreme Court Decision on SEC: What It Really Means for Immigration So, the Supreme Court just made a big call about how the SEC (you know, the folks who keep Wall Street in check) can use their in-house courts. It's got everyone talking, but what does it mean for us in the immigration world? Well, not as much as some hoped. Big names like Walmart and even SpaceX were crossing their fingers that this decision would shake things up for immigration cases, especially those handled by OCAHO (that's the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, for those keeping score at home). But here's the deal: the Court was more focused on jury trial rights, not how judges are picked for these cases. Now, you might be thinking, "Why should I care?" Well, at Atlas, we're always keeping an eye on these legal twists and turns. Even if this ruling doesn't directly change how immigration cases work, understanding it helps us navigate the crazy maze of rules and regulations we deal with every day. Bottom line? The game hasn't changed much for immigration, but we're still on our toes, ready to help you make sense of it all. Because let's face it, immigration law is complicated enough without throwing Supreme Court curveballs into the mix! #Immigrationupdate #LegalUpdates #StayingAhead Details below: https://lnkd.in/gNaWGq7U

The recent Supreme Court decision on Chevron deference marks a pivotal shift in administrative law, effectively dismantling nearly five decades of judicial precedent. This landmark ruling holds significant implications for immigration law, where Chevron deference has traditionally guided judicial review of agency interpretations. Join me as we delve into the ramifications of this decision and explore how it will reshape the landscape of immigration policy and enforcement. #SupremeCourtDecision #ChevronDeference #AdministrativeLaw #ImmigrationLaw #LegalAnalysis #JudicialPrecedent #PolicyChange #ImmigrationPolicy #LegalInterpretation #SupremeCourtRuling

The recent Supreme Court decision on Chevron deference marks a pivotal shift in administrative law, effectively dismantling nearly five decades of judicial precedent. This landmark ruling holds significant implications for immigration law, where Chevron deference has traditionally guided judicial review of agency interpretations. Join me as we delve into the ramifications of this decision and explore how it will reshape the landscape of immigration policy and enforcement. #SupremeCourtDecision #ChevronDeference #AdministrativeLaw #ImmigrationLaw #LegalAnalysis #JudicialPrecedent #PolicyChange #ImmigrationPolicy #LegalInterpretation #SupremeCourtRuling

Louisiana legislators will soon consider a bill that would empower local and state law enforcement officials to arrest people on suspicion of being in the country illegally. Senate Bill 388 closely resembles a controversial Texas law facing a high-profile legal challenge from the Biden administration and civil rights groups, which argue that it unconstitutionally usurps the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration law and will create chaos at the state’s southern border. Read more below

Check out this great article on current SCOTUS cases challenging Chevron and what overturning the precedent could have on the Administrative State in general and Immigration Law in particular. https://lnkd.in/efRg_VxA

"In a decision last week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the landscape of administrative law and potentially reshaping various policy areas, including immigration. The 6-3 ruling in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases marks a shift in how federal courts will interpret agency regulations and decisions moving forward." #immigration #immigrationmatters #chevrondoctrine #immigrationlaw #immigrationlawyer

𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗨 𝗦𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 The Administrative Court has rejected two judicial review challenges to the EU Settlement Scheme, in a judgment handed down on Monday: [2024] EWHC 469 (Admin). The Claimants challenged decisions that they were not eligible for either indefinite or limited leave to remain under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. The Claimants applied as Zambrano carers, but at the time of their applications and on the date when the Withdrawal Agreement came into effect each of them already had leave to remain which had been granted under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Their applications were refused for that reason. One of the Claimants had brought an earlier judicial review claim, which was considered by the Court of Appeal in R (Akinsanya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 37, [2022] 2 WLR 681. David Blundell KC, Julia Smyth and Natasha Jackson represented the Secretary of State. For more information, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/48Q5jbM #EULaw #PublicLaw #PublicAndAdministrativeLaw

Update: Last night, following the SCOTUS ruling, the 5th Circuit "dissolved" the administrative stay (which SCOTUS found "odd"), so the injunction is back in effect until a panel of 5th Circuit judges rule today. This "chaos" as Justice Sotomayor characterized it, is not how government is supposed to work. ----- Is this the end of plenary power? Are states now left to independently enact laws that apply to immigrants? To risk US foreign policy? This is a very big change in US law, in the balance of power between branches of government, and perhaps most importantly, in federalism and prioritizing the union of the states.