The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state law enforcement cannot hold undocumented immigrants just to buy time for federal authorities to take them into custody.

The ruling–seen as a victory for immigration advocates–is believed to be the first court decision in the country to forbid local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws. The court ruled that such enforcement would result in a second detainment that state law does not authorize.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody,” the court wrote in its decision.

A “federal civil immigration detainer” is a written request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to a local jail or law enforcement agency to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours, until federal agents can retrieve the detainee. Police departments and court officers are usually given guidance by state officials on how to respond to these requests. Some end up complying. In Massachusetts, for example, state police have held 27 people on detainers as of June 2016.

Other departments, on the other hand, will ignore these requests and release undocumented immigrants before ICE can detain them. Some localities–commonly known as “sanctuary cities”–have faced scrutiny from the Trump Administration, which has threatened to block federal funding. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed sanctuary cities make the country less safe. But now sanctuary cities have a legal basis for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials, as a result of this ruling.

The Massachusetts case revolved around Sreynuon Lunn, an immigrant from Cambodia. Boston Police arrested Lunn last year on larceny charges, and detained him until his trial. The case was dismissed in February after prosecutors were unable to get the alleged victim to come to court.

Lunn should have been freed, but was held for hours after his case was dismissed because of an ICE detainer issued against him. He was taken into custody by immigration authorities, but has since been released without being deported. Though Monday’s decision does not directly affect Lunn, the case persisted because prosecutors and the court knew it would set guidelines for similar situations in the future.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “At a time when the Trump Administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”

Naturally, ICE was quick to speak out against the court’s decision. “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities,” C.M. Cronen, the field office director for ICE in Boston, said in a statement.

Massachusetts is not the first state court system to rule on ICE detainers. Both California and Connecticut have statewide laws that limit who can be held at ICE’s request. Those laws also state that detainer requests are not binding for state and local officials. Boston and Cambridge each have similar citywide laws as well.

However, the state legislature could still undo this ruling if they choose to pass a law allowing Massachusetts state police to honor ICE detainers. Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County–an outspoken critic of undocumented immigrants–is currently working on legislation with three Republican state lawmakers.

“It will make the Commonwealth safer if we can get this bill passed by the legislature, which authorizes court officers and law enforcement officers to honor ICE detainers,” Sheriff Hodgson said.

As comments on immigration policy begin to focus on safety, it should be worth noting the Cato Institute found in 2015 that immigrants as a whole–both legal and undocumented–commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Additionally, a University of California analysis of federal data found that sanctuary cities are often safer than non-sanctuary cities.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Court Rules State Police Can’t Honor ICE Detainers appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit challenging Texas’ controversial immigration law made its way to a federal court in San Antonio on Monday.

SB4, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, essentially bans “sanctuary cities” in Texas. While the law does not specifically mention the phrase “sanctuary city,” it does punish local governments, officials, and police who adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy that “prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.” The law is slated to go into effect on September 1.

According to the law, those entities and individuals may not prohibit “peace officers” from asking a person who is lawfully detained or under arrest about their immigration status or place of birth. They also may not impede peace officers from cooperating with a federal immigration officer, or permitting a federal immigration officer to enter a jail to conduct enforcement activities. If they fail to comply with immigration laws, local governments can face fines of up to $25,500 per day of non-compliance, officials may be forced to give up their positions, and police chiefs can be charged with misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the City of El Cenizo, Texas; Mayor Raúl L. Reyes of City of El Cenizo; Maverick County Sheriff Tom Schmerber; Maverick County Constable Pct. 3-1 Mario A. Hernandez; and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). They filed a lawsuit against the defendants–the state of Texas, Abbott, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton–one day after the governor signed SB4.

The lawsuit claims that SB4 puts Texas and its local government officials and entities “at the complete mercy of federal officials,” and violates the Tenth Amendment and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that Texas “may choose to voluntarily relinquish its retained sovereignty entirely to the federal government,” but cannot force local governments to do so.

The lawsuit also asserted that SB4 threatens community members’ trust in local government and law enforcement officials.

Plaintiffs are safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe when their local law enforcement officers can be trusted for reporting crimes or just speaking with them about issues in the community. Plaintiff’s communities are healthier when all residents including undocumented immigrants, access public health programs,  unafraid to seek health care. And Plaintiffs’ communities are economically and socially stronger when all children, including undocumented immigrants, attend school.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on June 23 supporting Texas in the litigation. According to a press release from the DOJ that same day, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained that the DOJ is participating in the lawsuit to facilitate state and local cooperation with national immigration laws.

“President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” Sessions wrote in the press release. “Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

In a CNBC commentary piece about SB4, author Julissa Arce expressed her opposition to the law. “SB4 is essentially a ‘show me your papers’ law that is set to create an environment for racial profiling in a state where 10.4 million Hispanic Americans live,” wrote Arce, who is also the co-founder of Ascend Educational Fund, a nonprofit in New York City that provides scholarships to students regardless of their ethnicity, national origin, or immigration status.

Arce expressed hope that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs and protect immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

“I believe the Texas that led the country in giving undocumented students an opportunity at higher education, my home state, is the state that will ultimately prevail,” she wrote.

SB4 opponents spoke out against the law at a protest in San Antonio on Monday.

Undocumented youth have come from all over Texas to stand up for communities of color and against SB4. #HereToStay #SB4isHate pic.twitter.com/ut41Wtn8rz

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

On 2nd anniversary of #MarriageEquality I’m proud to be #undocumented & #queer fighting racist laws like #SB4 in TX! #Pride2017#HereToStay pic.twitter.com/PaMnvq4Fry

— Sheridan (@SirSheri) June 26, 2017

Among the crowd were Austin Mayor Steve Adler, and members of the San Antonio and Austin city councils.

LIVE elected officials address crowd #SB4isHate #HeretoStay https://t.co/DbAoIgxEnJ

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

Austin Councilman @GregCasar speaks to protestors against #SB4 this morning before federal judge hears both sides. “Alright let’s do this.” pic.twitter.com/5rrkRtFXoi

— Nick Wagner (@WagsPhoto) June 26, 2017

SA Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sillar gives an impassioned plea and prayer against #SB4 outside federal courthouse. pic.twitter.com/HNMZXVEoVZ

— Joey Palacios (@Joeycules) June 26, 2017

“We will not accept overt racism embedded in #SB4. Not today not ever.” @LUPE_rgv outside of the courthouse to #BlockSB4#SB4isHatepic.twitter.com/iAYPoHMKPI

— ACLU of Texas (@ACLUTx) June 26, 2017

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, who heard the case, declined to make a decision on Monday, according to the Texas Tribune. It is not yet clear when a decision will be handed down.

That same morning, Reverend Jim Rigby, a pastor at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church of Austin, was charged with a criminal trespassing misdemeanor after he was arrested on May 1 for protesting SB4 in a state office building. Rigby was among about 20 protesters, including immigrants, students, and Austin City Council Member Greg Casar, who were arrested in May for protesting the law.

On May 8, the day after Abbott signed SB4 into law, Paxton filed a lawsuit to uphold the constitutionality of the law. That case will be heard Thursday. These lawsuits could have a huge impact on undocumented immigrants in Texas and set a precedent for other areas that have designated themselves as “sanctuaries.”

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 Texas Municipalities Challenge State’s “Sanctuary Cities” Law appeared first on Law Street.

On January 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all government hiring. The move drew criticism from those who argue the freeze would disrupt crucial government services and programs. The freeze prohibits every federal agency, excluding those related to the military, public safety, and public health, from hiring new employees.

This means that for the foreseeable future, agencies must make do with the staff on hand. Federal agencies are even barred from filling vacancies left by outgoing employees. Lawyers are among the plethora of current and prospective public employees affected by the president’s order.

A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the federal government employed about five percent of the nation’s practicing lawyers in 2014, which equates to about 39,000 jobs. However, assuming the hiring freeze remains in place, this number is likely to stagnate and drop in the coming years. The incapacitation of this sizable employer will force newly graduated lawyers to alter their job search strategy. The freeze will mostly affect graduates entering job markets in or near government job centers.

As with many of his orders, the language describing the hiring freeze is vague. It is unclear whether the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, are exempt based on their importance to public safety and public health respectively.

Therefore, some graduates aspiring to work in the federal government may still have luck. Nonetheless, though Trump may have closed the door on many graduates who hoped to serve the public by entering the federal government, he has inadvertently opened doors in other industry sectors.

In the days and weeks following election night, immigration lawyers reported being swamped by calls and emails from immigrants hoping to learn what a Trump presidency might mean for them. Overnight, Trump’s inflammatory campaign rhetoric was transformed into impending immigration policy. Only days into his term, Trump began signing executive orders that would realize the type of hardline policies he had long threatened.

On January 25, Trump signed two orders that, among other things, called for the construction of wall along the Mexican border, an uptick in deportation efforts, and funding cuts to sanctuary cities. Two days later, the president signed an order that banned the entry of all non-citizens arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries. Both of these orders resulted in large public protests throughout the country.

As private citizens mobilized in the wake of Trump’s latest order, so too did immigration lawyers who began flocking to airports around the country and offering pro bono counsel to those detained. Assuming the Trump administration continues down its current path, immigration lawyers are likely to be in high demand. New lawyers hoping to serve the public may be frozen out of the federal government. But immigration law has, and will continue to be, an area in dire need of individuals dedicated to serving the public by any means necessary.

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 How Will Trump’s Hiring Freeze Affect New Lawyers? appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Adam Crapser, 41, who was born in South Korea but adopted by an American couple at age three, has brought a lot of attention to the issue of international adoptees who lack American citizenship. Adam Crapser’s adoptive parents never filled out the necessary paperwork and now he faces deportation to a country he hasn’t seen since he was three, where he has no family or friends, and knows neither the language nor the culture. According to a Korean-American advocacy group, about 35,000 adoptees in the country lack U.S. citizenship, many times because the parents don’t know they need to fill out certain paperwork.

They grew up as American citizens, then learned that they weren’t @PriscillaStoneS @adam_crapser @NYAdoptEquality https://t.co/o8A9E1u7Fb

— Frank Ligtvoet (@frank_ligtvoet) September 3, 2016

Adam Crapser, who until recently lived in Vancouver, Washington, with his two daughters and pregnant wife, was adopted with his sister and taken to the U.S. His only belongings when he arrived were a Korean bible, a pair of rubber shoes, and a stuffed dog. But seven years later the parents, who had been abusive the whole time and punished the siblings by locking them in a dark basement, changed their minds and abandoned the kids. At age ten, Adam Crapser was separated from his sister and passed through several different foster homes.

By the time he was 12, Thomas and Dolly Crapser adopted him, but that didn’t make life easier. The couple also had two other adopted kids and several foster children, and all of them were abused. The parents allegedly taped the children’s mouths shut with duct tape, slammed their heads into door frames, and hit them. According to the AP, the couple was arrested on charges of physical and sexual abuse and rape in 1991, but Thomas only got 90 days in jail and Dolly three years of probation.

.@repzoelofgren what can be done to help #adamcrapser? https://t.co/3w4Hcx4MLr Appalling abuse by ICE after a lifetime of abuse.

— Peter Delevett (@peterdelevett) October 27, 2016

Before the Crapsers were criminally charged, they had kicked Adam Crapser out of their home before he had any chance to collect his belongings. In an attempt to retrieve his Korean bible and rubber shoes from when he was little, he broke into their house, which led to charges of burglary. Later in life he got in trouble with the law for unlawful possession of a firearm, assault after a fight with his roommate, and for calling a son he had with an ex-girlfriend despite a protection order.

“I made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I’m not proud of it,” Adam Crapser told the New York Times magazine. “I’ve learned a lot of lessons the hard way.”

As a sister and mother of international adoptees, this story breaks my heart and infuriates me in all kinds of ways. https://t.co/GgVYKIzr4D

— Jeanne Ryan (@Jeanne_Ryan) October 28, 2016

In 2000, Congress passed a law that gives automatic citizenship to adoptees, but only future adoptees or children under 18. Adam Crapser wasn’t covered but had to apply by himself. At the beginning of the year he came onto the immigration authorities’ radar when he applied for a green card and his previous convictions showed up. Another law, that was made stricter after 9/11, made him deportable because of his previous crimes. Even though he is now a responsible father of three, soon to be four, he was taken away from his family and put in an immigration detention center for nine months. During a hearing on Monday, he waived an appeal since he desperately wants to get out of there and be with his family.

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” his attorney Lori Walls said to the AP. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.”

That someone who was taken from his home country at such a young age will now be sent off to a place completely alien to him and forced to split up from his wife and children, simply because of neglectful adoptive parents, has caused an uproar on social media. Many are pleading for the White House to step in.

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 Korean-American Man Who Was Adopted When He Was Three to Be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

The top stories on Law Street last week included coverage of our law school specialty rankings for real estate law and immigration law, as well as news on the U.S. approving direct flights from 10 cities to Havana. ICYMI–Check out the top stories from Law Street below.

1. Top Schools for Real Estate Law 2016

Law Street released its second set of law school specialty rankings last week. This time we ranked 44 law schools’ real estate law programs based on six categories–classes, jobs, networking, extracurriculars, location, and other ranking–and Columbia Law School came out on top. Read the full article here.

2. Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #4 Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School ranked fourth in Law Street’s top 10 schools for immigration law, with a score of 75 points out of a possible 100. Read the full article here.

3. U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

IMMIGRATION LAW

#1
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#2
COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL

#3
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

#4
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL

#5
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL

#6
YALE LAW SCHOOL

#7
LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOS ANGELES

#8
CORNELL LAW SCHOOL

#9
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL

#10
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL

REAL ESTATE LAW

#1
COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL

#2
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL

#3
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW

#4
FLORIDA LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW

#5
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#6
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LAW SCHOOL

#7
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW

#8
TULANE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

#9
ITT CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW

#10
USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW

LABOR LAW

#1
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#2
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

#3
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL

#4
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

#5
MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW
AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

#6
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER

#7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW

#8
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY OF ST. LOUIS

SCHOOL OF LAW

#9
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#10
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

TAX LAW

#1
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#2
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

#3
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER

#4
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY PRITZKER

SCHOOL OF LAW

#5
COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL

#6
UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW

#7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW

#8
BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

#9
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW

#10
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Specialty Rankings 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

NYUInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #1 New York University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Top Schools for Immigration Law Programs 2016Infographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here to see the all of Law Street’s 2016 Law School Specialty Rankings

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Schools for Immigration Law Programs 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

ColumbiaInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #2 Columbia Law School appeared first on Law Street.

HarvardInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #3 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

StanfordInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #4 Stanford Law School appeared first on Law Street.

University of ChicagoInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #5 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

YaleInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #6 Yale Law School appeared first on Law Street.

LoyolaInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the name of Loyola Law School’s clinic. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #7 Loyola Law School, Los Angeles appeared first on Law Street.

CornellInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #8 Cornell Law School appeared first on Law Street.

School #9Infographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect UC Berkeley’s offerings.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #9 University of California, Berkeley Law School appeared first on Law Street.

University of PennsylvaniaInfographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Immigration Law: #10 University of Pennsylvania Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Though positive changes are on the horizon for certain aspects of immigration law affecting transgender asylum seekers, the language that courts use to process transgender asylum cases extends beyond the letter of the law itself. The language with which courts deal with transgender individuals and issues can fundamentally prevent transgender asylum seekers from gaining safety in the United States.

How does the language of asylum courts impact the case law and outcomes of transgender asylum seekers?

Transgender Asylum Case Law: A Legal Overview

Asylum seekers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) face particularly strong obstacles in their application processes. Some protections have been added to immigration case law that have increased protections for LGBT asylum seekers. In 1990, lesbian women and gay men gained protection under immigration law as a “particular social group” (PDF). This means that, in a similar way to how Title IX protects women from gender-based discrimination within the United States, lesbians and gay men became a likewise “protected” group that can be afforded asylum due to homophobic discrimination and violence in their countries of origin.

The dangers of language that is not trans-inclusive are extremely high for trans individuals seeking asylum.  In 2000 and again in 2004, immigration courts recognized people that they term “gay men with female sexual identities” as a “particular social group,” therefore providing that these people can be granted asylum protections if they are persecuted for being a “gay male with female sexual identity” in their country of origin. However, courts misgender many asylum seekers when they label them as such; by refusing to acknowledge the chosen names and accurate (female) pronouns for transgender women seeking asylum, the courts only provide protection for trans women seeking asylum insofar as they are misidentified as “gay men with female sexual identities.” This invalidating language refuses to accept trans women’s status as women, and makes it very difficult for them to make it clear to the court that the violence they face in their country of origin is because of their identity. Because of this refusal to use trans-affirmative language, courts subject transgender asylum seekers to a great deal of added abuse. Sure enough, until very recently, the U.S. government locked up transgender women seeking asylum with men, leaving these women vulnerable to extreme abuse and violence. This violence mirrors the transphobic violence that asylum seekers were trying to flee.

Case Study: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS

Misgendering language in immigration courts does even more than creating an indirectly damaging environment. This language creates strong precedent for transgender individuals to lose their asylum cases because of the uncertainty that misgendering causes. Imprecise and inaccurate language in the court can create tremendous and unnecessary obstacles for advocating for transgender immigrants seeking asylum.

In the case of Hernandez-Montiel v. INS (2000), Hernandez-Montiel applied for asylum on the basis of being a “gay man with female sexual identity” who had suffered past persecution in Mexico. The BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) denied the request. Hernandez-Montiel applied for asylum at age sixteen after being raped and harassed by police, and though this testimony was found to be credible, the BIA denied the asylum application because the Immigration Judge (IJ) identified Hernandez-Montiel’s social group as “homosexual males who wish to dress as a woman [sic],” which did not at the time qualify as a particular social group.

The 9th Circuit court overturned the BIA’s judgement, finding that “gay men with female sexual identities” such as Hernandez-Montiel, comprise a particular social group for the purposes of asylum cases, and that the sexual assaults that she experienced at the hands of police officers were “on account of” her membership in that group. The 9th Circuit decision also stated that “Geovanni is not required to prove that his persecutors were motivated by his sexual orientation to the exclusion of all other possible motivations.” Therefore, the court granted the asylum petition. This ruling is significant because it establishes the above-discussed precedent that “gay men with female sexual identities” who are persecuted on the grounds of this identity are eligible for protection under U.S. immigration law.

While this may seem like an unambiguous victory for trans women, this language causes a lot of confusion for advocates of transgender asylum seekers. For example, Lambda Legal–an advocacy organization for LGBT people–identified Hernandez-Montiel in a press release as an “effeminate gay man” and, in tandem with the courts, used male pronouns to refer to Hernandez-Montiel. However, specifically transgender advocacy organizations identified Hernandez-Montiel as a trans woman.

This language-based inconsistency and inaccuracy not only places Hernandez-Montiel and others at risk for being imprisoned incorrectly while awaiting decisions, but it ensures that transgender organizations cannot properly advocate for people who are being abused in the system.

Case Study: Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft

In a similar case four years later (2004), asylum applicant Reyes-Reyes–referred to by the court by her given name, Luis–was denied entry into the United States because of the extreme misgendering and refusal to acknowledge Reyes-Reyes’s status as a woman that continually manifested in the language of the court’s proceedings. In this 9th Circuit case, Reyes-Reyes, a citizen of El Salvador, applied for asylum, withholding of removal (so that she could stay in the United States longer, without being forced back to El Salvador), and relief under CAT (the Convention Against Torture) for fear of persecution based on Reyes-Reyes’s sexuality and gender expression. The Immigration Judge denied all of these applications, and the Board of Immigration appeals upheld these denials.

Reyes-Reyes fled El Salvador as a teenager 25 years ago for fear of persecution. The court characterizes Reyes-Reyes as “a homosexual male with a female sexual identity… Although Reyes-Reyes has not undergone sex reassignment surgery, he has a characteristically female appearance, mannerisms, and gestures… He has a ‘deep female identity’ and has gone by female names such as Josephine, Linda, and Cukita.” Using inappropriate male pronouns and insisting that Reyes-Reyes is gay instead of transgender, the court acknowledged that Reyes-Reyes has a history of being violently persecuted in El Salvador, having been kidnapped, raped, and beaten “because of his sexual orientation” at age 13. Reyes-Reyes told no one for fear of further brutality, and the Immigration Judge (IJ) focused deeply on this failure to report the crimes. The IJ determined that Reyes-Reyes had not established that the government of El Salvador, or anyone acting on the government’s behalf, would want to do Reyes-Reyes harm upon return. Because of this, it was ruled that Reyes-Reyes had failed to establish past persecution for the purposes of withholding of removal. Upon appeal to the BIA, Reyes-Reyes obtained pro bono representation and presented information from human rights organizations, government, and news sources detailing El Salvador’s hostile political and cultural climate “towards male homosexuals with female identity.” This information included an affidavit from an expert on Latin American culture. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s denials.

The 9th Circuit court remanded these decisions, but not on the grounds that the court was wrong about Reyes-Reyes’s identity. Rather, the court remanded the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions to deny asylum due to incorrectly applied burdens of proof. This means that the legal precedents of misgendering Reyes-Reyes are still firmly established, including the assertion of her being a “male homosexual with female identity.”

In this case, too, Reyes-Reyes’s identity was interpreted differently by different sources because of the transphobic language used by the court to describe this asylum applicant. The LA Times identified Reyes-Reyes as a trans man, while the advocacy organization Immigration Equality identified Hernandez-Montiel as a trans woman.

Future of Trans Asylum Cases

Despite certain positive changes in immigration law regarding transgender asylum seekers, transgender detainees are still at extreme risk for abuse and violence while being detained in the U.S. Because of the courts’ transphobic language–the refusal to acknowledge the proper names and gender pronouns of transgender applicants, insisting on calling trans women “gay men with female sexual identities”–transgender asylum applicants are placed at increased risk of being denied asylum and being exposed to extreme violence.

Resources

Primary

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000)

Additional

 Center for American Progress: The Plight of Gay and Transgender Women Seeking Asylum

Immigration Equality: Asylum Law Basics

Bitch Media: Crossing Borders: LGBT People in Immigration Detention Are Often Targets For Abuse

Advocate: Transgender Immigrants to be Detained According to Gender Identity

Fusion: Why Did the U.S. Lock Up These Women With Men?

Lambda Legal: Mexican Gay Man Seeking Asylum Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Transgender Asylum Weekly: Hernandez-Montiel v. INS

FindLaw For Legal Professionals: Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft

LA Times: Transgender Man’s Case Tests U.S. Immigration Law

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Language of Asylum Law: Obstacles for Transgender Asylum Seekers appeared first on Law Street.