Fifteen undocumented youth were arrested in Austin, Texas on Wednesday during a protest against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s threat to sue the federal government over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a statement from the protest organizers.

The protest, organized by national immigrant rights advocacy group Cosecha, brought together about 40 protesters for the first DACA-led civil disobedience action under the Trump Administration. Four DACA recipients and eleven allies were arrested after they blocked traffic by sitting in an intersection in front of the State Capitol, according to Cosecha.

“I am getting arrested today to tell my parents, my community, and the rest of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] that no matter what politicians say, you are worthy and we will not settle for the crumbs they offer us in exchange for being the economic and labor force that sustains this country day in and day out,” said Catalina Santiago, a DACA recipient who was arrested during the protest.

Another shot of the sit-in blocking traffic. People opposing Paxton’s move to end DACA pic.twitter.com/V3KfkKMxMS

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

 

Here’s video of DACA protesters being loaded onto police vehicle pic.twitter.com/MZQ0vf2xqy

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

DACA is an Obama-era program which allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they had entered the U.S. before they turned 16, in addition to certain other provisions. Paxton, alongside nine other Republican attorneys general, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June. In the letter, the attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government if Trump does not rescind the DACA program by September.

During the protest, “DACAmented” youth–a combination of “DACA” and “documented”–and allies marched through the streets of Austin chanting and singing phrases like, “One struggle, one fight, immigrants of the world unite,” and “The power is in our hands. This is our state. Injustice is not welcome here.”

Upon arriving at the capitol building, protesters laid posters in the middle of the intersection which read “Permanent protection. Dignity and Respect,” but a state trooper removed the signs immediately. The protesters sat in the intersection as drivers blared their car horns, and law enforcement officials began arresting those protesters about 10 minutes later.

BREAKING: Support the #DACAmented youth who were arrested at a sit-in in Austin, TX this morning: https://t.co/bW7Oo3eKv3pic.twitter.com/sp8YP22Rbi

— Movimiento Cosecha (@CosechaMovement) July 26, 2017

“Best case scenario is that they don’t arrest us,” one protester in the intersection said in an interview with KVUE. “The worst case scenario is that we get deported and I’m willing to do that for all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Not just DREAMers, not just DACA recipients, all 11 million undocumented immigrants that deserve dignity, respect, and permanent protection.”

After the protesters in the intersection were arrested, the remaining protesters continued their demonstration on the lawn next to the capitol building with chants of “Undocumented, unafraid.” Cosecha live streamed the protest on their Facebook page.

Paxton’s opposition to DACA is the latest in a series of state and national actions aimed at ramping up restrictions against undocumented immigrants. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law on May 7, punishing local governments, officials, and police who do not comply with federal immigration laws. Opponents say the SB4 law, which essentially bans sanctuary cities, threatens the safety of undocumented immigrants and communities as a whole by placing distrust in law enforcement and government officials.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 25 which enlisted local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, undocumented immigrant arrests increased by 38 percent compared to the same period in 2016, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wednesday’s protest is only the most recent demonstration in support of immigrant rights. A group of 15 girls donning quinceañera gowns took to the steps of the Texas capitol building on July 19, where they danced to “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)” and spoke out against SB4.

“We will resist through celebrating our families and our culture.”

Latinas are protesting an anti-sanctuary city law, quinceañera-style. pic.twitter.com/PQgfMNF1et

— Splinter (@splinter_news) July 20, 2017

 

#SB4Basta Quinceañera protest. They begin by dancing to traditional music, finish w/@Lin_Manuel‘s Immigrants We Get the Job Done! pic.twitter.com/JJLdY2YY2t

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) July 19, 2017

The Trump Administration has taken a tough stance against immigration over the past six months. While delivering a speech to the National District Attorneys Association on July 17, Sessions said that “our goal is not to reduce illegal immigration but to end illegal immigration.” But as undocumented immigrants and allies push back against policies that would negatively affect their communities, the fight for immigrant rights wages on.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 15 Protesters Arrested at Texas Capitol in Demonstration Defending DACA appeared first on Law Street.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, sent out a critical tweet of President Donald Trump after the president reiterated his commitment to his “original travel ban.”

These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad. https://t.co/zVhcyfm8Hr

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Trump’s original tweet compelled Conway to tweet for the first time since retweeting a video about suspending New York Giants star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. on December 20, 2015.

Conway believes that while Trump’s tweets on the ban may appeal to his voter base, it isn’t the right decision in terms of garnering the right number of votes to win a case in the Supreme Court.

Conway’s outburst comes within the same week that he chose not to pursue the position of leading the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, according to Politico.

“I have reluctantly concluded, however, that, for me and my family, this is not the right time for me to leave the private sector and take on a new role in the federal government,” he said in a statement.

While many people interpreted Conway’s tweet as a swipe at Trump, he attempted to clarify his comment in a string of four tweets. Conway explained that he still supports the Trump Administration, but that most lawyers would agree with him that Trump’s tweets on legal matters “undermine the Admin agenda and POTUS.”

1) Just to be clear, and in response to inquiries, I still VERY, VERY STRONGLY support POTUS, his Admin, policies, the executive order …

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 5, 2017

Earlier in the day, Kellyanne, a counselor to the president, had made an appearance on NBC’s “Today” criticizing “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little what he does as president,” according to US News and World Report.

Apparently her husband disagrees and finds Trump’s tweets important. The president’s tweets created a reaction even without George Conway’s critique.

While Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, had previously claimed that Trump’s executive order was “…not a Muslim ban. It’s not a travel ban,” according to The Hill, the president has reverted to using the word “ban.”

People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

Trump proceeded to call it a travel ban in four other tweets since June 3.

With his executive order set to be heard in the Supreme Court, many lawyers agree with Conway and feel that the president has greatly damaged his court case. Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston told the New York Times:

These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers, who are struggling to defend his policies in an already hostile arena. I do not envy the solicitor general’s office.

George Conway has been a partner at the corporate law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since January 1994 and won a case at the Supreme Court with Morrison v. National Australia Bank, according to CNN.

Conway was also considered for solicitor general in January 2017 after Trump had won the election. Despite his marriage to Kellyanne, his potential position in the government would not have been nepotism because neither one would have held direct authority over the other, according to The New York Times.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Critiques Trump’s Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is taking its fight to implement a controversial executive order halting travel from six largely Muslim countries for 120 days to the highest judicial level: the Supreme Court. Lower courts have blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s revised order–he scrapped a first attempt earlier this year after courts stopped it–over the past few weeks.

Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims, critics argued, revealed that his true motivation for instituting the ban was to stop Muslims from coming to the country. Trump has said the order–which blocked travel from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia–is grounded in national security concerns.

In its brief, the administration argued:

The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism. The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting [the order’s] temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism.

The road to the Supreme Court has been seemingly inevitable. Trump crumpled up his first order, issued on January 27, after a federal appeals court in San Francisco blocked it in February.

The president issued a revised ban in March, which dropped the number of affected countries from seven to six (Iraq was removed), removed specific references to protecting Christian minorities, and allowed for a more case-by-case approach to determine which travelers are allowed into the country. Like the first order, it froze the refugee program for 120 days, and dropped the threshold of admitted refugees each year from 110,000 to 50,000.

If the High Court decides to take up the case, it will be an early test for Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Gorsuch barely budged when asked about his views on the travel ban. Referring to a previous comment from a senator that Gorsuch would likely preserve the ban, Gorsuch said: “He has no idea how I would rule in that case. And senator, I am not going to say anything here that would gave anybody any idea how I would rule.” When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch what he thought of banning other religions or citizens of entire countries, like Jews from Israel, Gorsuch replied:

We have a Constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Takes Travel Ban Battle to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

On May 7, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill that will allow law enforcement officers in Texas to inquire about people’s immigration status during stops. It also threatens to punish officers who do not cooperate with federal immigration agents. While the signing–which took place spontaneously on a Sunday night–caught opponents by surprise, the places targeted by the law, known as sanctuary cities, have been a large part of the public immigration debate lately. What is less clear is what exactly sanctuary cities are and why there has been so much controversy surrounding them. Read on to find the answers to these questions and the outlook for so-called sanctuary cities going forward.

Sanctuary Cities

So what exactly are sanctuary cities? Although the term is frequently thrown around, there is actually no legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary city, it’s more of a concept. Much of the debate boils down to how local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration efforts. There are several cities and local governments that have laws preventing local law enforcement from turning over suspects to federal authorities for deportation. Although this may seem surprising, as the law currently stands, local authorities have no legal obligation to assist federal immigration enforcement. There are currently at least five states and 633 counties with some sort of laws limiting law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The video below details what sanctuary cities are and how they work:

The Political Battle

On his fifth day in office, President Donald Trump entered the fray by drafting an executive order that threatened to punish any local governments that do not aid federal authorities in tracking down and detaining people who entered the country illegally. Not only did Trump’s executive order threaten to punish these cities, it also made more people eligible for deportation. Namely, the order now allows anyone who has, “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense or pose a risk to public safety in the judgment of an immigration officer” to be deported. Before Trump’s executive order, the focus for deportation had been a crime-based removal rational, specifically targeting those who had already been convicted of crimes.

The previously established guidance allowed local law enforcement to choose to hold someone or not while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated with deportation proceedings. If a local jail had someone targeted for deportation, federal immigration authorities would ask local law enforcement to hold that person for additional time, typically 48 hours, so that they could initiate the deportation proceedings. However, with the recent executive order, counties that limit their cooperation with federal authorities–an example of which may be declining federal detention requests–would need to change their policies or face a potential loss in federal funding.

Local law enforcement had the option to deny retainer requests in the first place because the Department of Homeland Security determined that holding someone without a warrant while deportation proceedings began could actually be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And given additional legal issues surrounding conditions placed on federal grant funding, President Trump’s executive order was frozen in April by a federal judge. Regardless of the order’s fate, there is still confusion between neighboring districts and fear among law enforcement that orders like these will prevent immigrants from speaking to and assisting the police.

While sanctuary cities have taken on greater prominence under the Trump presidency, the sanctuary movement actually goes back more than 30 years to another celebrity Republican president. That president was Ronald Reagan and the people arriving then were from Central America, fleeing authoritarian governments supported by the United States in an effort to stop the spread of communism. In that case, the United States refused to help the refugees trying to escape violence from a government that it had helped keep in power. However, churches, colleges, and even cities responded by whisking these people across the border into safe havens.

The video below looks at the origins of the sanctuary movement:

Although targeting sanctuary cities and increasing deportation efforts have become important issues for Republicans lately, historically, expanding immigration enforcement has not been unique to one party. On the contrary, Trump’s predecessor President Obama, who is often touted as a staunch civil rights defender, enacted similar policies during his two terms. In fact, at one point during the Obama presidency, deportations reached an all-time high with more than 400,000 people deported in one year. Even after policy changes that sought to refocus enforcement efforts to target only convicted criminals were implemented, the number of deportations remained as high as 240,000 people in Obama’s last year in office. Most of the people deported by the Obama Administration were from either Mexico or Central America.

As for sanctuary cities themselves, in many ways, former President Obama actually helped fuel their rise. While the sanctuary movement had been around for decades, Obama’s Secure Communities program–built off of an earlier Bush presidency idea, which made it mandatory for local police to share information with federal authorities–vaulted the issue into public debate. Obama did eventually end the program, however, he remained focused on immigration enforcement, as the numbers indicate, up to the end of his term. While immigration enforcement has been a priority for presidents from both parties, Obama’s policies shifted the focus toward punishing convicted criminals and sharing information rather than targeting all immigrants. President Trump’s recent efforts go further to increase the number of people considered priorities for deportation and he has started directly confronting cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities.

What’s next?

Although the Sanctuary Movement has been around since at least the 1980s, its future is unclear. As part of the same executive order President Trump signed in January, he also threatened to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities. While experts doubt that Trump would be able to cut off all funding for these cities, many of the legal questions have not yet been resolved by the courts. The Trump Administration could also consider getting an injunction against certain policies in certain sanctuary cities that go beyond not helping and actually hinder federal efforts. The following video looks at what President Trump might do to sanctuary cities that refuse to change their laws:

The Obama Administration also predated any of Trump’s actions by threatening to withhold funds for not complying with federal laws. Last February, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, agreed to transfer illegal immigrants who have completed their federal sentences into the custody of immigration officers instead of local authorities if those local authorities have shown resistance to ICE in the past. Additionally, threats to withhold federal grants for places that do not share information when requested by federal authorities came in 2016 under the Obama Administration.

These were not the only efforts to dissuade sanctuary cities either. In 2015, the House also passed a bill, which would prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving certain Justice Department grants. That bill would block federal funding for immigration-related grants, like a program that reimburses cities for the costs involved in detaining deportation targets for additional time, as well as more general law enforcement funding like money from the Justice Assistant Grant program and the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. Despite these efforts at the federal level, many cities have remained defiant. In Boulder, for example, the city voted to recognize itself as a sanctuary city even though doing so would open it up to further funding threats.

Conclusion

In February, shortly after President Trump took office, federal immigration enforcement executed a number of raids across 12 states in an effort to sweep up illegal immigrants. However, these raids differed from those that took place during the Obama Administration in that they targeted a higher percentage of people who had not been convicted of crimes. Although differing from the past administration’s policy guidance, these actions followed in line with the executive order issued by Trump soon after his inauguration.

The sanctuary movement, and sanctuary cities in particular, have sprung up since the 1980s to respond to increased enforcement efforts. However, efforts both by the previous Obama Administration, and now President Trump, have sought to undercut local governments who seek to restrict cooperation with federal authorities. This has been done through vehicles such as Trump’s executive order but also primarily through threats of reduced federal funding. While the president’s efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities involves several unanswered legal questions, the scope of potential funding losses could cause a significant blow to local budgets. Nevertheless, these places have for the most part continued to stand up and resist federal immigration policies that would require them to assist in deporting illegal immigrants.

With Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement and others, such as the travel ban, currently working their way through the courts, these issues are in the process of being resolved. An important question after that point is whether the parties involved will abide by the decision reached by the courts.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safe Havens? The Story Behind Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will the New Health Care Bill Pass?

Republicans are set to vote on the revised version of their health care bill today, but it is still unclear if it will pass this time. The last version of the bill failed “bigly,” but this time House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the GOP has enough “yes” votes to pass the bill. Recent changes to the bill would allow states to get waivers to redefine essential health benefits required in insurance plans, like mental health care or maternity care. Waivers would also allow insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, potentially pricing them out of the insurance market.

As late as Monday, some Republicans were still undecided, especially because of the pre-existing conditions part. But then yesterday, the GOP decided to add $8 billion to the bill to help cover people with pre-existing conditions, and some Republicans that had been undecided threw their support behind the bill. While $8 billion may be enough for the bill to pass in the House, it won’t be enough to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions.

The American people should understand that what Republicans are trying to do to health care today is a disgrace. https://t.co/rhAzY3udVL

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 4, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 has been used by presidents from both political parties to protect hundreds of millions of acres of land, but overnight, dozens of parks and monuments are now at risk. The parks under review include Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, Marianas Trench near Guam, and the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona. Many of these parks are concentrated in the West and Southwest, but marine reserves in both the Pacific and Atlantic are also under threat. With a second executive order approving offshore drilling in previously protected areas signed last Friday, marine environments are in an especially precarious position.

Trump framed the national parks as a “massive federal land grab” and claimed to be giving power back to the states, but by gutting public land protections, he is opening the parks up to industries that they have long been protected from. If the acreage of national parks is reduced, the land will be available for drilling, mining, and logging. The argument for defending states’ rights is a transparent cover for promoting commercial interests.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke went so far as to state that Trump is concerned national parks result in the loss of jobs and reduced wages. This concern is based on zero evidence. The National Park Service helps add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy, which is why economists encouraged President Obama to frequently use the Antiquities Act while in office. In 2016, visitors to national parks spent an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway regions (communities within 60 miles of a park). Hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and bars flourish in areas around national parks. The parks are undeniably popular–hundreds of millions of visitors stream to them each year and the number of visitors has been rapidly rising for the past three years. States orient their entire tourism industries around their national parks and reap the benefits accordingly. For example, in Utah, national park tourism at the state’s 13 sites created $1.6 billion in revenue last year. It’s an interesting statistic considering that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch claims that President Obama abused the Antiquities Act and now supports Trump’s executive order.

If Trump truly believes parks are draining public funds, then he should be attacking the private vendors that monopolize concessions and merchandising within the parks. If he really sees designating parks as an individual state’s responsibility, he should have placed state governments in charge of the review, not Ryan Zinke. If Trump truly cared about parks having a negative impact on the economy, he should have established a review of park spending, not a review of the parks’ existence. Disbanding the parks is not a bold move to cut government spending or limit the authority of the federal government–it’s a transparent power grab from the private companies that Trump is beholden to.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks appeared first on Law Street.

During a visit to a tool factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Tuesday afternoon, President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive order aimed at reforming the H-1B visa program.

The H-1B, a temporary visa for foreign workers to fill high-tech jobs in the U.S., has been targeted by both Democrats and Republicans for being unfair to American workers. Critics argue that some employers abuse the program by firing American workers and hiring foreign workers, many from India, on the cheap.

Trump’s executive order will essentially make it harder for employers to issue H-1B visas; employers and the prospective visa-holders would have to prove the job is going to “the most highly skilled workers,” according to a White House official familiar with the order.

The visas are designed to help a variety of U.S. companies fill their workforces, but critics contend that they are often used as an excuse to hire cheap foreign laborers. In some instances, American workers even train their eventual replacements–foreigners who work the same job for a lower wage.

According to a senior White House official, the order will direct “the strict enforcement of all laws governing entry into the United States of labor abroad for the stated purpose of creating higher wages and higher employment rates for workers in the United States.” It will deliver on Trump’s promise to “buy American and hire American,” the official said.

Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers apply for the visas each year. The government admits 85,000–a lottery system selects 65,000 applicants, and an additional 20,000 are given to graduate students.

Supporters of the visa program laud it as a way for employers to fill high-skilled jobs that are difficult to fill with American workers. But while the program is designed for engineers, scientists, and computer engineers, most of the H-1B workers are in the information technology sector–jobs that do not require an advanced education.

In fact, the three companies with the most H-1B employees–Tata Consultancy, Cognizant Technology, and Infosys–mostly hire foreign workers who only have bachelor’s degrees. An estimated 80 percent of employees at those three firms only have bachelor’s degrees.

In addition to reforming the H-1B program, the official said Trump’s order will call on a number of government agencies to clamp down on “fraud and abuse” in the immigration system in order to protect American workers.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Sign Order on H-1B Visas to Encourage Hiring Americans appeared first on Law Street.

One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to “build a wall” on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. During his first few days in office, President Trump signed an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement improvements. In Section 2 of the order, it reads that it is the policy of the executive branch to: “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Many of President Trump’s supporters are also ardent fans of the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite encountering intense opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, the Trump Administration appears to be committed to beginning construction as soon as possible. However, there may be roadblocks ahead for the massive security project, such as issues of eminent domain and private citizens blocking or severely slowing construction of the wall, in addition to environmental concerns and waivers that must be obtained before beginning construction.

Border Wall Plans

Border security is critically important to our overall national security. As noted by the order, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. without inspection or admission present “a significant threat to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order seeks to expedite determinations of any apprehended individual’s claims that they are eligible to remain in the U.S., as well as promptly remove any individuals whose claims have been lawfully rejected.

“Mexico / US Pacific Ocean Border Fence” Courtesy of Tony Webster : License (CC BY 2.0)

A critical component of Trump’s presidential campaign was regaining control of America’s borders. Now that he’s president, the particulars of how he will finance the massive border wall are still up for debate. The wall is estimated to cost $21.6 billion (though other estimates put it anywhere between $8 billion to $25 billion). The executive order signed by Trump in January contains no mention of the cost of construction. Mexico has repeatedly stated that not only will it not pay for the wall, but it will retaliate if a border tax is imposed. The order also required government agencies to report the financial assistance they gave Mexico in the past five years, giving rise to speculation that Trump wants to redirect the aid to pay for the wall.

Currently, there are hundreds of companies looking to profit significantly from the construction of a border wall. More than 375 companies have expressed interest in participating in the project. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said it would likely begin accepting prototypes in March 2017. Those that are approved will be asked to submit full proposals. Surprisingly, a Mexican company, cement maker Cemex SAB, has stated that it would be willing to provide supplies to the project. The plan to seal the border would take three phases, with over 1,250 miles of fences and walls, and would be completed by 2020. San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas are expected to be part of the first phase. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report also showed that the U.S. government has begun seeking environmental waivers to build in specific areas.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

President Trump is not the first president to propose a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The goal of the act was to build 700 additional miles of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting. It also gave the Department of Homeland Security permission to use technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and specifically noted that there would be at least two layers of reinforced fencing. In 2006, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the act, including then-Senator Barack Obama.

In 2008, Congress introduced the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, which called for Homeland Security to again construct more fencing. This time it asked for an additional 700 miles of two-layered, 14-foot high fencing along the southwestern border of the U.S., but the bill never made it out of committee. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, however, was amended in 2007 to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion in determining what type of fencing was appropriate, given the different terrain along the border. A one-size-fits-all approach, according to many, including the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), was not an effective manner to tackle securing the border.

Issues With Landowners

Once construction on the previous border wall began, the government ran into issues with landowners near the Rio Grande. Hundreds of landowners protested what they called a “government land grab” to install the fence. It resulted in 320 eminent domain cases being taken to court. In order to purchase property for the construction of the wall, USBP had to settle with private landowners. While some settled out of court, others are still fighting.

Some private property owners want more money, while others want a gate in the fence to be able to access their land on the other side. Eloisa Tamez, 81, was given a code to get through a gate to access a quarter of her three-acre ancestral property that was bisected by the 18-foot barricade. A prominent border wall opponent, Tamez battled her case in court for seven years, before she eventually lost to the government. She was awarded $56,000 for her loss of land and the inconvenience, but says she wasn’t looking for money–she wanted to keep her land without the barriers.

The government almost always wins in eminent domain or condemnation cases, but these cases can take a significant amount of time and resources to settle. Therefore, landowners fighting President Trump’s proposed border project may have the ability to slow the project down immensely. NPR analyzed more than 300 fence cases, and found that two-thirds of them have been settled, with most taking about 3.5 years for a resolution and usually involving under an acre of land. The median settlement awarded to landowners was $12,600.

Other Concerns and Considerations

Aside from the eminent domain, private property rights, and human rights concerns with building a border wall, there are also environmental considerations. Arguably, the full construction of a wall will interfere with the migration of animals and plant pollination. Immense amount of traffic around the wall will destroy flora and fauna, potentially leaving large amounts of garbage and debris in the area as well. These environmental concerns do not seem to be of much importance to those in favor of construction.

“Double Wall Near Tijuana” Courtesy of Jonathan McIntosh : License (CC BY 2.0)

Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, told NPR that construction of the wall could cause flooding issues. A wall will profoundly affect the connectivity of species, fragmenting habitats, and block the free movement of wildlife. So, the border wall has the potential to spread detrimental consequences not just to humans, but also to other species. Additionally, building over major physical barriers, like mountains which dot the U.S.-Mexico border, make the border wall almost impossible to build.

Moreover, it is clear that the wall will disproportionately affect people of color. Militarization of the border means that minority communities will be targeted and even displaced. Millions of people live on both sides of the border. In the four states–California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona–on the U.S. side of the border, people of Mexican origin comprise at least a quarter of the total population, and even higher concentrations exist within 100km of the border itself.

Conclusion

The executive order signed on January 25, 2017, is still in effect. Many people who voted for President Trump view the wall as his signature campaign promise and expect to see progress made on its construction as soon as possible. Companies also seem to have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for profiting off the proposed construction. However, private property owners may have the most power in stalling the wall’s completion for a significant period of time, and the efficacy of a wall in actually securing the borders is certainly up for debate. For now, President Trump has promised that construction is “going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It’s way, way, way ahead of schedule.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s campaign proposal of a “Muslim ban” is coming back to haunt him yet again: on Wednesday, two federal judges blocked Trump’s new travel ban, which would have restricted travel from six largely Muslim countries. The ban was set to go into effect at midnight. These rulings mark the second time Trump’s attempts at implementing such an order–essentially a veiled “Muslim ban”–have failed. 

Both judges ruled that the executive order amounted to religious discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, on the grounds that it was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Hours later in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the purpose of the ban was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Trump repeatedly invoked during the campaign. The plaintiff in Honolulu was Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh argued that the ban would have barred his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him. Syria is one of the six countries–along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran–included in Trump’s order.

The Maryland ruling was based on complaints by a cohort of nonprofit groups who work with refugees and immigrants. At a rally in Nashville after the Hawaii judge announced his ruling, Trump said he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He also suggested scrapping the second order, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries, and instead pursuing the first one in court.

“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.” While there is an argument that Trump was within his executive authority in issuing the order, there is not much tangible evidence that the order would alleviate a clear danger to U.S. national security. Americans have never been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from one of the six affected countries.

The government’s next move is likely going to be similar to what happened with the first order last month. An appeal of Watson’s ruling–which was broader than Chuang’s–would be heard by the same federal appeals court in San Francisco that upheld the legal challenge to Trump’s first order. That appeal followed a ruling by a judge in Washington.

Since the issuance of his first travel ban in January, Trump has faced stiff resistance from Democrats, advocacy groups, and even some members of his own party. The Trump Administration contends the order–which freezes travel from the six countries for at least 90 days, and pauses refugee admissions for at least 120 days–is legal, and is based on guidelines the Obama Administration originally set.

But so far, Trump’s argument has been defeated by his own backlog of statements that seem to undermine his claim that his actions are just meant to protect national security. The legal battle is sure to continue, but for now at least, Trump might need to go back to the drawing board.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Travel Ban Defeated in Court Once Again appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order blocking travel from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa faced its first legal challenge on Wednesday. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii, is suing the Trump Administration. The order, Chin said in his complaint, violates the Constitution and will have deleterious effects on his state’s economy and educational institutions.

A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, and the travel ban is set to go live on Thursday. While Trump’s first order, issued during his initial days in office, faced a torrent of litigation, the revised order, released on Monday, did not experience any immediate challenges. Lawyers and state attorneys general are taking a more cautious approach to legal action; they are taking time to examine the new order’s legality, while acknowledging that it was more carefully written than its predecessor.

In the State of Hawaii’s brief, which requests a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, the plaintiffs argue the ban “severely damages the State’s schools and universities.” The plaintiffs also said the executive order “detracts from the University of Hawaii’s diversity and impedes the State’s commitment to international scholarship and global exchange—inflicting the very harms Congress’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination was designed to prevent.”

Trump’s new travel ban is different from the initial directive. Residents of six countries–Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria–will not be allowed into the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the initial order, has been removed from the list of affected countries. And in what is the new order’s potential bulwark against legal action, green card-holders and people who already have visas from the six countries are allowed entry into the U.S. Like the first executive order, the country’s refugee program will be put on ice for at least 120 days.

Another of Trump’s immigration policies was hit with a legal challenge on Wednesday. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, asked a federal district court judge to block the president’s January 25 executive order. That order threatens to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. “This court action is designed to protect our residents and provide financial clarity,” Herrera said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hawaii AG Files Lawsuit Over Trump’s Revised Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. All refugees will be barred for 120 days, Syrian refugees are blocked indefinitely. Thousands of people have hit the nation’s airports and city centers to protest Trump’s order. Business and religious leaders have spoken out against the travel ban. Congressmen–Democrats and many Republicans–have decried the move. But still, there are many people in America who are frightened, and there are plenty who support the executive order.

According to a recent Reuters poll, nearly half (49 percent) of the country supports the order. It’s largely split by party lines. A majority of Republicans (over 75 percent) support the ban, while roughly 20 percent of Democrats do. The poll, which gathered responses from 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans, also found that 31 percent of respondents say the ban makes them feel “more safe.” About one quarter said it makes them feel “less safe.”

Cheryl Hoffman, a 46-year-old living in Sumerduck, Virginia, told Reuters that she understands America is a nation built on immigration. “But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars,” she said. For some, however, Trump’s order is more than a penny-saving decision. It’s about keeping Muslims out of the U.S.

“Every story about a Muslim immigrant is that they are as American as apple pie,” Sal Oliva, a hotel worker and Uber courier from Staten Island, New York told The New York Times. “But I’m sorry, Islam is no friend of L.G.B.T. people.” Oliva, who is gay, added: “When Islam meets gay people in Somalia or wherever, they get thrown off the roof. And you expect them to be different when they move here? You can’t expect people to absorb our values.”

The Reuters poll also found that most Americans (56 percent) do not support preferential treatment for persecuted Christian minorities who live in the seven countries affected by the order. Trump contends the order has nothing to do with religion, and is not a “Muslim ban,” as many critics have been calling it. “This is not about religion,” Trump said in a statement on Friday. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Michael Bower, a 35 year-old who lives in Seattle, thinks the outrage over the order is a bit much. “Let’s just take a breather,” Bower told The New York Times. “Take a little time out. Let’s get the smart people in here and formulate a plan.” According to polling, nearly half of the country agrees.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Many Americans Support Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump has spent his first week advancing his hardline campaign promises by signing a slew of executive orders. On Wednesday, the president made his way to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where he signed two executive orders specifically related to immigration.

The first ordered the construction of his infamous wall along the southern border. The second order demanded federal agents implement more aggressive deportation practices, calls on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire 10,000 new agents, allows local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers, and, finally, block federal grants to so-called “sanctuary cities.” In spite of these developments, officials in sanctuary cities and jurisdictions are already standing in defiance.

According to the New York Times, four states, 364 counties, and 39 cities have laws on their books that limit the ability of local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE and/or forbids local authorities from inquiring into one’s immigration status. When local authorities arrest someone, they fingerprint them and share the information with ICE. If ICE finds the detainee is undocumented, they ask local authorities to hold the person for 48 hours longer than they normally would. However, DHS has stated these detainer requests are optional as jailing an individual without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. It seems the president, or more likely his advisors, are aware that they cannot legally force local jurisdictions to comply but that they can possibly coerce local jurisdictions into cooperation by imposing economic sanctions.

Executive orders are not policies in a typical sense and were traditionally implemented as a means of guiding existing laws rather than fabricating new, broad-sweeping ones. While President Trump’s orders are strong statements of intent, they are decidedly vague. There is no telling how much funding and what kinds of grants President Trump intends to deny to sanctuary jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government can restrict funding to indirectly achieve federal objectives, but those mandates cannot be “unduly coercive.” While this may prevent the Trump administration from halting all funding, defiant jurisdictions risk massive and unexpected cuts.

Concerned officials in Washington, D.C. warned that, depending on what the Trump administration decides is constitutionally “reasonable,” the city’s budget could be slashed considerably. Due to its unique status, the District has perhaps the most to lose. Nevertheless, the president’s coercive anti-immigrant order will gravely affect any and every sanctuary jurisdiction.

The president claims that the damage he intends to inflict on communities across the country is in defense of the country at large. Since the campaign, it is clear that President Trump’s anti-immigrant stand is grounded in a long-standing stereotype that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, bring crime. In his speech at DHS headquarters, President Trump stood in front of a crowd that included the family members of people killed by undocumented immigrants to whom he gestured while claiming his measures would save “thousands and thousands of lives.” Additionally, the preamble of his executive order states that sanctuary jurisdictions “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” However, the “harm” caused by sanctuary cities and undocumented immigrants can be, and has been, measured.

Political scientists at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found that sanctuary jurisdictions saw no statistically significant change in crime following the passage of sanctuary laws. Furthermore, a study by the American Immigration Council found that “immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.” And these facts do not even consider discrimination in the American criminal justice system. A large body of research has shown that Latinos, and people of color in general, are disproportionately arrested and convicted. Moreover, once convicted, people of color face longer sentences than white people found guilty of the same crimes.

President Trump’s attack on sanctuaries has already met resistance, and so it is possible that funding for hundreds of communities will drastically diminish. These sanctions will place a huge strain on communities throughout the country for no good reason at all. President Trump is well aware that these communities provide a safer environment for undocumented people. Perhaps he’s forgotten that they are also home to Americans he promised to “never let down.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Trump’s Order to Sanction Sanctuary Cities is Met with Resistance appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that fulfilled, at least partially, his campaign promise of building a “beautiful wall” on the Mexican border. According to Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer, the order will direct the Department of Homeland Security to use existing funds and resources to begin work on the wall, perhaps as early as next month. Drafts of another executive order signal Trump will enact strict visa bans for immigrants from “terror prone” nations. He is also expected to temporarily bar refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Those executive orders have yet to be signed, but they imply Trump will follow through with his promise to clamp down on immigration, whether from Latin America or the Middle East and Africa. Trump signed the executive action on the Mexican border wall at the DHS headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Any additional funding for the wall, which Trump has promised will ultimately come from Mexico’s coffers, would need congressional approval.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

According to another executive order draft on immigration and refugees, Trump will authorize a freeze on refugees fleeing civil wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Exceptions will be made for religious minorities who are escaping persecution. The order will also temporarily block visas for immigrants from Muslim-majority countries–Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–until stricter vetting procedures are in place.

“To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban.” It is unclear if Trump will block Muslims from other Muslim-dense countries–Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others–from coming to the U.S.

A draft of another executive order Trump is considering reviews bringing back CIA “black sites,” all of which President Obama shuttered during his first week in office in 2009. But the draft is clear that the Trump Administration will not bring back water torture, a move he flirted with on the campaign trail. The draft states: “no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as described by U.S. or international law.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Makes Good on Mexican Border Wall Promise appeared first on Law Street.

Several major Supreme Court rulings came out on Thursday, including what amounts to a rejection of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as well as an opinion upholding the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. This post will be updated as more rulings come out, check back on Monday for the next wave of decisions.

Here is Law Street’s editorial team with what you need to know:

Update–June 26 rulings:

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of political bribery.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for similar abortion restrictions in other states.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for gun control.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for immigrants in the United States.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of affirmative action.

The Fourth Amendment: Utah v. Strieff

The decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and it protections against illegal searches, allowing evidence that may have been obtained illegally to be used in court.

Click here to read a full analysis of the opinion and how it may lead to more illegal searches in the future.

—

Check back here for additional coverage of new Supreme Court rulings. The final round of decisions is expected to be released on Monday, June 27.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated the date when the next round of decisions are expected. It is Monday, June 27 not Monday, July 1.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the Recent Supreme Court Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

One decade ago, the iconic Bald Eagle lived up to the American dream by defying extinction.

At the dawn of the 20th century, the majestic bird of prey found itself in peril, and not from natural causes. The Bald Eagle’s plight resulted from man-made difficulties. In the early years, hunting and logging threatened the birds, then the pesticide DDT came onto the scene. DDT ended up in the eagles’ food and caused them to lay weak, inviable eggs. Thus, the eagle population plummeted.

Americans scrambled to protect their favorite bird. The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 outlawed the shooting, poisoning, or killing of Bald Eagles, DDT was banned, and Bald Eagles became one of the first species protected under the new Endangered Species Act of 1973.

In 2007, the government removed them from the endangered species list, proving the success of environmental programs and offering hope to species on the brink.

While Bald Eagles escaped extinction, many other species haven’t been so lucky. Habitat destruction, human construction, poaching, and even climate change close in on animals every day, threatening the balance of our interconnected ecosystem. Here’s an overview of what we’re doing to protect endangered species and what else we could be doing.

What does it mean to be an endangered species?

Here’s a quick rundown on how we define endangered species.

The Basics

“Endangered” is an official government designation created by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Animals who earn the title:

• Receive protection from potentially harmful federal activities, meaning that agencies have to consider endangered species in their authorization and funding decisions;
• Can’t be transported, sold, or “taken,” which bans any activities that can kill or harm the animal like shooting, trapping, hunting, and pursuing;
• Become eligible for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recovery plans. The plans evaluate research and protocols to determine needs for successful species recovery; and,
• Could be supplied with habitats if needed, purchased by the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Protection is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a section of the Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.

How do animals get the designation?

Endangered species are simply species in imminent danger of becoming extinct. A “threatened” designation refers to species at risk for becoming endangered soon.

Common things that can endanger a species are:

• Destruction or alteration of habitat.
• Overuse for education, scientific, commercial, or recreational purposes.
• Disease.
• Predation.
• Any natural or man-made factors that affect survival, which could cover a number of human activities.

After establishing those factors, “candidates” for the list run through a thorough review process that could take up to two years. In that time, experts submit biological information on the species that will help inform the decision. In the review, experts consider the severity of the threat, how soon the extinction could happen, and the uniqueness of the species. You can check out the current list of candidates here.

Once a species gets on the list, the authorities reevaluate that case every five years to see if a classification should be removed or changed.

The ESA is an American law, yet many endangered species like tigers and gorillas aren’t in the United States. In these cases, the ESA enforces bans and limits on trade in endangered animal body parts.

Opposition to the Current Policies

Protecting species often clashes with other interests. Recently, the government listed the Long-Eared Bat as a threatened species. But farming, timber, oil, and gas interest groups claimed that protecting the bat restricts them from certain practices and would drive up costs of their operations. Use of wind turbines, natural gas wells, and pesticides would all be restricted in order to protect the bat. Organizations plan to continue voicing their concerns as the threatened designation moves toward enforcement next month.

Listen to more about the controversy via NPR:

Problems With the Current Policies 

Like the Bald Eagle, some species have recovered enough to be removed from the endangered species list. Sadly, those successes are mere droplets in an entire ocean of worry. Many of the vulnerable species at risk of extinction don’t even make it on to the endangered species list and have no other source of protection. For example, according to the World Wildlife Federation’s (WWF) 2014 Living Planet Report, the populations of all vertebrate species have declined by 52 percent in the last 40 years.

Extinction means more than the life or death of a given species, as many animals influence our ecosystem, economy, and food security in ways we can’t realize until they’re gone. The loss of one species could create a devastating domino effect. The case of the Bonobo, a type of chimpanzee, makes a perfect example of what can happen when species’ decimation continues unchecked.

The Plight of the Bonobo

Bonobos face extinction as a result of poaching from the bushmeat trade. But Bonobos themselves aren’t the only thing that we need to worry about when considering their extinction. Studies have found that a majority of plants and trees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo need Bonobos to spread their seeds and will not reproduce unless their seeds are first “processed” by the Bonobo; this means that the Bonobos’ stomach acids break down hard seed coatings and enable them to sprout. Plant growth depends on each Bonobo. On average, every Bonobo processes about 11.6 million seeds in its lifetime.

Their extinction would set off a chain reaction: loss of trees and plants, loss of other species that lived among the trees and plants, and eventually we’d reach a stillness known as empty forest syndrome, where large vertebrate populations dwindle to nothing. According to biologist David Beaune, the same thing could happen in ecosystems that unknowingly rely on other chimpanzees, gorillas, and apes that “process” and spread seeds.

U.S. Protective Actions

Last year, President Obama signed an executive order for a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking to address the illegal wildlife trade. The strategy emphasized three priorities:

1. Strengthening enforcement of wildlife trafficking bans.
2. Cutting the illegal wildlife trade at home and abroad.
3. Strengthening partnerships in efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade and poaching.

Altogether, the strategy cracks down on the market for illegal wildlife trade as a strategy to protect animals. As Harrison Ford says in the PSA below, “When the buying stops, the killing does too.”

In February 2015, the Departments of State, Justice, and the Interior released the Implementation Plan for the strategy, which outlines specific steps that the President’s Task Force on Combating Wildlife Trafficking need to take and how its progress will be measured. You can access the full plan to read about the specific steps proposed to address the three strategic priorities bulleted above.

One example of the strategy at work is Operation Crash, a proactive criminal enforcement initiative that aims to search and reprimand people who hunt and kill rhinos or traffic their horns. Operation Crash has made 26 arrests and convicted 18 perpetrators. You can check out examples of the convictions here.

While this is excellent progress, the National Wildlife Federation recommends full participation in recovery programs and encourages stakeholders to produce measurable recovery targets that go beyond the safety net features of the Endangered Species Act. It acknowledges the need to stop the killing, but wants to see more proactive recovery assistance options.

Is “de-extinction” possible?

In the introduction of the WWF Living Planet Report 2014, Director General Marco Lambertini encourages people to take up the difficult but crucial responsibility of protecting wildlife.

Difficult, certainly, but not impossible – because it is in ourselves, who have caused the problem, that we can find the solution. Now we must work to ensure that the upcoming generation can seize the opportunity that we have so far failed to grasp, to close this destructive chapter in our history, and build a future where people can live and prosper in harmony with nature. We are all connected – and collectively, we have the potential to create the solutions that will safeguard the future of this, our one and only planet.

After all, we can’t bring species back once they’re gone. Or can we?

In the following video, writer Stewart Brand discusses the possibilities of a “dawn of de-extinction,” the reality of bringing species back from well beyond the brink by reassembling an entire genome using ancient DNA.  He discusses how geneticist George Church has created a multiplex automated genome engineering machine that tests ancient DNA combinations for viability in living organisms. Combinations that win can be used to synthetically hybridize the genome of an extinct species with the genome of its closest living relative.

So theoretically, we might be able to resurrect lost species. But in the meantime, we should focus on protecting the species that are still around.

Resources

Primary

White House: National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered

U.S. Department of State: Presidential Task Force Releases Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking

U.S. Department of Justice: The Fight Against Wildlife Trafficking

Additional

National Geographic: Bald Eagles Soar Off Endangered Species List, But Will Act Be Weakened?

World Wildlife Federation: Living Planet Report 2014

National Wildlife Federation: Keeping the Endangered Species Act Strong

Oryx Journal: What Would Happen to the Trees and Lianas if Apes Disappeared?

Scientific American: If Apes Go Extinct, So Could Entire Forests

Society of Environmental Journalists: The Endangered Species Act at 40: Forty Things Journalists Should Know

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough? appeared first on Law Street.