Immigration News

Can Customs and Border Protection Agents Demand to See Your ID on a Domestic Trip?

American citizens had their introduction to the Trump-era immigration machine Wednesday, when Customs and Border Protection agents met an airliner that had just landed at New York’s JFK airport after a flight from San Francisco. According to passenger accounts, a flight attendant announced that all passengers would have to show their “documents” as they deplaned, and they did. The reason for the search, Homeland Security officials said, was to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a search for a specific immigrant who had received a deportation order after multiple criminal convictions. The target was not on the flight.

After days of research, I can find no legal authority for ICE or CBP to requirepassengers to show identification  on an entirely domestic fight. The ICE authorizing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, provides that agents can conduct warrantless searches of “any person seeking admission to the United States”—if, that is, the officer has “reasonable cause to suspect” that the individual searched may be deportable. CBP’s statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1467, grants search authority “whenever a vessel from a foreign port or place or from a port or place in any Territory or possession of the United States arrives at a port or place in the United States.” CBP regulations, set out at 19 C.F.R. § 162.6, allow agents to search “persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof.”

I asked two experts whether I had missed some general exception to the Fourth Amendment for passengers on a domestic flight. After all, passengers on flights entering the U.S. from other countries can expect to be asked for ID, and even searched. Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg professor of law and […]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

From the New York Time — A three-judge federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously refused to reinstate President Trump’s targeted travel ban, delivering the latest and most stinging judicial rebuke to his effort to make good on a campaign promise and tighten the standards for entry into the United States.
The ruling was the first from an appeals court on the travel ban, and it was focused on the narrow question of whether it should be blocked while courts consider its lawfulness. The decision is likely to be quickly appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
That court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place.
Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, which suspended travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries and limited the nation’s refugee program, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court.
The decision, from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reviewed a ruling issued last Friday by Judge James L. Robart, a federal judge in Seattle. Judge Robart blocked the key parts of Mr. Trump’s executive order, allowing immigrants and travelers who had been barred entry to come into the United States.
Judge Robart’s ruling inspired a harsh attack from Mr. Trump, who accused the judge of endangering national security. After the appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday, Mr. Trump issued a pre-emptive critique on Twitter.
“If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled,” he wrote. “Politics!”
The judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed […]

Federal Lawsuits Blocking Travel Ban – UPDATE

From ABC News

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to suspend some immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries — Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran and Libya — for 90 days, halt the refugee program for 120 days and suspend the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Since he signed the order Friday, at least 13 lawsuits have been filed around the country, including one from Washington state. Attorneys general in Virginia, Massachusetts and New York announced on Monday their intentions to intervene in existing federal suits filed over the past weekend in their states.

Here are the lawsuits filed as of Tuesday that challenge the executive order, naming Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, the border patrol and others as defendants. The Trump administration has denied that the order targets Muslims and that it is a ban.
Attorney Representing 2 Iraqis Detained at JFK Says Trump’s Immigration Order Is Unconstitutional
Protests Surge Across the Country Against Trump’s Immigration Order
President Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration Explained
Lawsuits Filed Tuesday
Chicago

Dr. Amer al-Homssi, 24, a medical resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago/Advocate Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, has been stuck in Dubai since trying to board a Chicago-bound flight on Sunday, according to his complaint. A Syrian citizen who has legal residency in the United Arab Emirates, he was taken by U.S. preclearance security officers to secondary screening at Abu Dhabi International Airport, where officers canceled his valid J-1 U.S. visa, citing the executive order. According to the complaint, the officers told al-Homssi there was nothing that could be done except to wait 90 days and then follow up with the U.S. Embassy. He risks losing his residency status in the UAE if he is not able to return […]