Title 42 is a public health law that was invoked by the Trump Administration at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to turn away asylum seekers, contrary to the expertise of public health professionals and U.S. obligations under national and international law. President Biden continued and expanded its use, long after other pandemic measures ended. In Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Administration must end its use of Title 42 to expel…
20 Results
Under the Trump Administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), most asylum seekers arriving at the U.S./Mexico border were forced to return to Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearing. The Biden Administration attempted to terminate the program. Texas and Missouri sued to stop termination of the program. The district court entered a nationwide permanent injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate…
Under the “Remain in Mexico” policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), certain asylum seekers arriving at the U.S./Mexico border were forced to return to Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearing. As of January 2021, tens of thousands of MPP asylum seekers were waiting in Mexico for their asylum hearings, which had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020 with no clear dates for when the hearings would resume. ADL joined 110 other…
This case involves a challenge to an Executive Order (EO) that requires state and local officials to consent in writing to refugees being resettled within that state and locality before the refugees can live there. Agencies that work with refugees to help them resettle within the United States sued to stop the EO from going into effect. ADL joined an interfaith amicus brief prepared by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and joined by 27 other coalition partners in support of the refugee…
These cases involve a challenge by legal services agencies and the New York Attorney General to a federal government policy authorizing civil immigration arrests in and around New York State courthouses — a policy that disrupts the effective functioning of our courts, deters victims and witnesses from assisting law enforcement and vindicating their rights, hinders criminal prosecution, and undermines public safety. ADL joined amicus briefs in both cases, prepared by the Immigrant Defense…
At issue in the trio of DACA cases consolidated by the Court is the Administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. The DACA policy was created by President Obama in 2012 and granted work authorization and relief from deportation — subject to eligibility and agency approval — to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children before 2007. DACA recipients would be able to renew their status every two years. The…
At issue in these cases are the Department of Homeland Security’s Regulation (the “Regulation”) which significantly expands the meaning and application of the term “public charge.” A person determined by the government to be a “public charge” may be denied admission into the U.S. or denied lawful permanent resident status. While the term “public charge” has always meant someone who is primarily dependent on the government, the Regulation…
This case involves challenges to immigration enforcement-related conditions imposed by the Justice Department in FY17 on the receipt of federal public safety grants by California and San Francisco under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program and by California under the Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) program and COPS Anti-Meth Program (“CAMP”). ADL filed a brief supporting California at the district court level, in…
At issue in this case is the Administration’s termination of temporary protected status (TPS) for individuals from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan. TPS is a form of humanitarian immigration relief that allows individuals from designated countries to live and work legally in the U.S. if they cannot return safely to their country of origin due to armed conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances. Most TPS recipients came to the U.S. at a young age, lived here…
This case involves a challenge to immigration enforcement-related conditions imposed by the Justice Department on the receipt of federal public safety grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program. ADL's brief argues that, far from improving community safety, these conditions would only undermine Philadelphia’s protections of immigrants through its “Welcoming City” policies, compromising public safety for all. Immigrants, who are…
At issue in this case is a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by a group of states led by the Texas Attorney General seeking to permanently enjoin the DACA program based on the theory that President Obama did not have the authority to enact it. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office intervened to defend DACA as did a group of DACA grantees represented by MALDEF. Together, they are opposing Texas’s request that the court block DHS from…
At issue in this case are three laws (SB54, AB103, and AB45) the state of California passed in 2017 to protects its immigrants and foster trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities by limiting and clarifying the roles of local law enforcement and government officials in assisting federal immigration enforcement efforts. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California erroneously claiming that such laws violate federal immigration law. ADL filed an amicus brief in this case in…
At issue in this case is President Trump’s third attempt at prohibiting travel to the United States from six majority-Muslim nations. The Ninth Circuit affirmed an injunction put in place by the district court, which protects foreign nationals with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. ADL’s brief, which was joined by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of…
At issue in this case is President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program created by President Obama in 2012 that granted work authorization and relief from deportation for a two-year period for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. The decision unnecessarily put the lives of the nearly 800,000 DACA recipients and their families in limbo. ADL joined an amicus brief in support of the challenge to this…
At issue in this case is a challenge to President Trump’s executive order withholding federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions. ADL filed a brief urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the nationwide injunction put in place by a federal judge in California permanently blocking the policy. As an organization that intimately understands the importance of trust between law enforcement and communities, ADL argues in its brief that the President’s Executive…
This case challenges immigration enforcement-related conditions imposed by the Justice Department on the receipt of federal public safety grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program. ADL filed a brief urging the Court to block enforcement of these new standards imposed on the federal grants. ADL’s brief argues that the policy would undermine City protections of immigrants through Chicago’s “Welcoming City policy” and…
At issue in this case is the federal government’s decision to tie certain DOJ public safety grants for law enforcement to immigration enforcement conditions. ADL filed a brief urging the court to issue a preliminary injunction to block DOJ’s unconstitutional interpretation and intended application of federal immigration law and to ensure the protection of critical state protections for immigrants. As the largest non-governmental trainer of police on issues of hate crimes and…
At issue in this case is Texas’ SB4, which would effectively commandeer local law enforcement in Texas to act as immigration agents. ADL filed a brief urging the court to issue a preliminary injunction, arguing that if the law goes into effect it would irreparably harm trust between law enforcement and communities that has taken years to build. As the largest non-governmental trainer of police on issues of hate crimes and extremism, ADL knows well the importance of building trust between…
At issue in this case is President Trump's executive order withholding federal funds to "sanctuary" jurisdictions. ADL filed a brief urging the court to issue an injunction, arguing that the executive order threatens to cause immediate and irreparable harm. As the largest non-governmental trainer of police on issues of hate crimes and extremism, ADL knows well the importance of building trust between law enforcement and communities they serve. By coercing jurisdictions to turn local law…
This case is a challenge to Donald Trump's executive order withholding federal funds to "sanctuary" jurisdictions. ADL filed a brief urging the court to issue an injunction, arguing that the executive order threatens to cause immediate and irreparable harm. As the largest non-governmental trainer of police on issues of hate crimes and extremism, ADL knows well the importance of building trust between law enforcement and communities they serve. By coercing jurisdictions to turn local law…