Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

Teenage Illegal Alien Right’s to an Abortion: The ACLU’s Lawsuit

A lawsuit over a 17-year-old illegal immigrant’s right to get an abortion has seen many twists and turns since it was brought by the ACLU a little over a month ago–the most recent of which happened only days ago. The girl in question, known only as Jane Doe in court documents, was caught crossing the border in September and learned shortly after while at an immigration detention center specifically for illegal alien minors that she was pregnant. She did not want to carry her pregnancy to term however, following Trump administration policies, the detention center refused. They instead took her to religious counseling sessions to convince her not to get an abortion and to a clinic to get ultrasounds of the fetus which they then showed to her.

All this is part of a policy implemented in March requiring approval from the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement before a shelter can release a non-citizen minor to get an abortion or abortion-related service. The director of this office, Scott Lloyd, has long been outspoken in his condemnation of abortion and women who get abortions. He has made public announcements, in the wake of the policy, that he would allow no abortions whatsoever for and only allow release for “pregnancy services and life-affirming options counseling.” Texas officials have made it clear that they also will allow no abortions.

Under Texas law, a minor requires either parental approval or court approval before receiving an abortion. However, even after receiving court approval to get an abortion, the shelter Jane Doe was staying at refused to take her to a clinic where she could get an abortion. After this, the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Jane Doe to secure her right to an abortion and challenge the policy itself.

This is a matter that has seen very little litigation, so there were quite a few eyes on the case ruling. Just weeks ago, the court ruled on the issue in favor of the ACLU–leading to a twist in the case before an appeal was brought. Let’s look at the lawsuit, the ruling and this most recent twist in order to understand what this case means for the rights of illegal aliens to an abortion.

The ACLU Lawsuit

As we discussed earlier this week, illegal aliens have quite a few constitutional rights including 1st, 4th, 5th, and Equal Protection Act protections. This, along with the obligations of the government to take care of unaccompanied minor illegal aliens–an obligation which the government has recently been found in breach of–formed the cornerstone of the ACLU’s case.

The ACLU argued that the policy violated First and Fifth amendment rights by forcing these minors to receive approval before gaining access to an abortion–something far beyond the usual constitutional protections granted to citizens under the law. This is especially true because the policy provides no explicit exceptions, even for victims of rape. They argued that this, along with forcing minors to attend religious counseling discouraging abortions and requiring them to get approval from either parents or a sponsor before getting an abortion, violated the Fifth Amendment right to privacy. They argued they violated the First Amendment by compelling unaccompanied immigrant minors to discuss their decisions to have abortions. The lawsuit also alleged that requiring religious counseling violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

ACLUThe Flores agreement  is a government agreement which requires the government to provide care for unaccompanied illegal alien minors up to a certain minimum standard. This includes a requirement to provide medical care, specifically including family planning services and emergency health care services. The lawsuit argued that the government policy did not live up to these obligations.

The District Court’s Ruling

The federal district court sided with the ACLU, signing an order allowing Jane Doe to receive an abortion. The judge in the case called both the shelter’s actions and the policy itself “shocking” and “unconstitutional.”

To make the ruling simple, the decision essentially came down to the court stating that it is well established as unconstitutional to outright deny access to abortion–whether it is applied to a citizen or an illegal alien. By following the state rules of Texas when it comes to receiving an abortion, Jane Doe had the equal protection of the law and was constitutionally allowed to receive an abortion.

The order required the shelter to “promptly and without delay” transport Jane Doe to the nearest abortion clinic and allow her to obtain an abortion.  It is important to note however that the order does not yet extend to challenging the policy.

The Case Takes a Twist

The government refused to comply with the court’s order, and appealed the case. However, the appeals court supported the lower court ruling–although they delayed the abortion slightly to seek a sponsor for Jane Doe. This delay was potentially a serious issue for Jane Doe. Texas law does not allow nearly any abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, at 15.5 weeks Jane Doe was nearing the point where the case would become moot.

Even after this, the government made it clear that they would take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. They argued that there is no established constitutional right to an abortion while in federal custody. They also interpreted the rules of the Flores agreement to require the care of all minors in their custody–including unborn fetus’ such as Jane Doe’s. This is an interpretation supported by no case law. In fact, the rulings on the status of a fetus two months into a pregnancy tend to go the other way.

However, here came the twist. Before the government made any further filing to seek a stay on the court’s order requiring them to allow an abortion, the ACLU moved up Jane Doe’s clinic appointment, changed it from a counseling appointment to an actual abortion, and Jane Doe got the abortion she wanted.

As mentioned above, Texas law does not allow nearly any abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, so the clock was ticking for Jane Doe. However, the government has taken affront to the ACLU’s actions. While the ACLU argues they were under no obligation to wait for the government to decide to act while Jane Doe ran out of time, the government has sought sanctions against the ACLU lawyers and argue that the lower court ruling should be vacated due to their actions.

The Case Moving Forward

Jane Doe got her abortion. In a statement afterword she said that nobody should be shamed for making the right decision for themselves. However, the case is not over. There has been no movement on the government’s requests as of now. What’s more, and most importantly, the central question of the case has not been thoroughly addressed.

These ruling imply that, at minimum, non-citizens have a right to the same protections of state abortion laws the same as citizens would have. However, the exact outlines of these rights have not been fully explored–the rulings in this case are rather brief. The ACLU will continue its battle against the policy of the Trump administration regarding illegal alien abortions. It seems quite likely that the question will eventually reach the Supreme Court as many are discussing the case as the largest abortion case since Trump took office. Jane Doe is also not the only plaintiff in the ACLU’s case, it was brought on behalf of all similarly situated people. This is not the last we will hear of this case or this issue. As of now, the trends say that non-citizens have the same rights to an abortion as anybody else.

Teenage Illegal Alien’s Right to an Abortion: Understanding Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens

A 17-year old girl who realized she was pregnant while being held in an immigration detention center in has found herself at the center of an ongoing lawsuit over her right to get an abortion as an illegal immigrant. The girl is unnamed, known only as Jane Doe in all the documents associated with her. She was pregnant when she was originally caught, by herself, crossing the border in September. However, she did not realize she was pregnant until she was being held in a Texas shelter.

We’ve talked before about the shelters the government is required to provide to unaccompanied minors held for potential deportation, and the governments failures when it comes to providing basic necessities in these shelters. However, the government was denying something else this time–access to an abortion. Jane Doe had made it clear that she did not want to carry her pregnancy to term, but was repeatedly denied requests to leave the shelter to go to a clinic and get an abortion. In the meantime, she was instead taken from the shelter to–without her request–to attend religious counseling sessions to convince her not to get an abortion and to a clinic to get ultrasounds to show her sonograms of the fetus. As the timer for an abortion was obviously ticking down, eventually the ACLU was forced to bring a lawsuit on behalf to enforce her rights to an abortion.

This lawsuit is an interesting way to analyze a not well resolved issue of law: the rights of non-citizens to an abortion while in the U.S. However, it is worth first addressing the constitutional rights of non-citizens and illegal aliens in the U.S. Despite a bit of a misinformation campaign to the contrary, non-citizens inside the U.S. do have constitutional rights–end of story. But to explore both the lawsuit and the rights of non-citizens in general, we’re going to do a two-part article. This article will address non-citizen constitutional rights and the next one will deal with Jane Doe’s lawsuit itself.

abortionConstitutional Rights of Illegal Aliens

Right off the bat, illegal aliens have constitutional rights. Despite a great deal of information on the internet trumpeting that they do not, they do. Before you leave a comment on this article, they do. Seriously. Not only do they have constitutional rights, but the fact that they have these rights has been settled for over a century.  The issue has been settled since 1886.

The first cases addressing the issue all dealt with Chinese immigrants, primarily here as non-citizens working on the railroads. In three cases–in 1886, 1896, and 1903–it was firmly established that so long as you are within U.S. territory you have at least some constitutional rights regardless of your citizenship status or whether you are here legally or illegally. These non-citizens were ruled all the way back then to have 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights as well as the due process protections of the 5th and 6th Amendments.

The lynchpin of these rulings rested on the words of the Constitution of the United States: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You notice that the first section of that quote says “citizen” while the rest of the sections simply say “person.” This is an important distinction; some rights are indeed generally reserved for citizens but due process and equal protection of law is guaranteed to any person in the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently stuck to this interpretation of the Constitution.

In 2001, they ruled once again that the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens–legal or illegal. Two decades earlier, they ruled against Texas preventing illegal alien children from attending grade school on Constitutional Equal Protection grounds. To make a complicated issue short, states cannot deny to anybody in their jurisdiction–including illegal aliens–equal protection under their laws.

The Supreme Court has, at least in the criminal context, also extended the protections of the First and Fourth Amendment. This includes rights such as search and seizure protections, a right against self incrimination, and political freedoms of speech and association.

Situations Where Non-Citizens Have Very Little Rights

While illegal aliens do have Constitutional rights, the federal government has an extremely broad discretion in how to treat these non-citizens–immigration proceedings. The Supreme Court has long established that immigration law is the realm of the fed and these proceeding are essentially an administrative matter above judicial review.

Immigration is treated as a national security and foreign policy matter–firmly in the realm of Congress. This means Congress can do things that might be constitutionally unacceptable if they were dealing with citizens; if only in the context of immigration and deportation proceedings. This power is further supported by the nature of immigration proceedings as administrative as opposed to criminal hearings–you don’t go to jail you just get deported.

When the Supreme Court upheld this in 1952, they did so in the context of Congress’ right to expel noncitizens who were former communists. However, they also made it clear what the message behind the ruling was, saying “In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit…One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.”

What Do the Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens Mean in the Abortion Context?

Non-citizens and illegal aliens have constitutional rights and, generally, enjoy protection of state law equal to that of a citizen. Depending on the state an illegal alien lives in, these rights are occasionally expanded by state law. While California likely offers the most additional protections, many states offer things such as in-state tuition, driver’s licenses, healthcare, and more. If somebody tells you non-citizens do not have constitutional rights or are not protected by the law, they are incorrect.

But before Jane Doe’s case there had never been a case specifically ruling on the constitutional rights of non-citizens to an abortion. Obviously there are a great deal of protections for citizen women seeking an abortion, although some might argue these protections are not enough. However, no court had ruled on the specific issue. Non-citizens enjoy equal protection of the law, but how does that apply when it comes to the law on abortion? Later this week we’ll look at Jane Doe’s case and find out.

A Scarlet Letter: Sex Offender Status to Be Put on Passports

Over a year since the law was passed the State Department has begun enforcing provisions of the International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders–more colloquially known as the International Megan’s Law or H.R. 515–requiring the passports of registered sex offenders convicted of sex offenses involving a minor to bear a notice saying, “the bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor.”

The International Megan’s Law was introduced back in 2015 and signed into law by former-President Obama on February 2nd, 2016. There are many provisions of the law, however the relevant ones here require sex offenders whose crime involves a minor to bear passports including the above discussed notice. The law also requires offenders to give law enforcement 21 days notice before travelling out of the country.

sex offenderThe law has obviously been in effect for over a year, but as of a few days ago the State Department will begin revoking the existing passports of covered sex offenders and requiring them to apply for new passports bearing the notice. The goal of this law is to target and eliminate sex tourism, a serious issue. According to the State Department, the passport notice and provisions of the law will not prevent a sex offender from leaving the country altogether or affect the validity of their passports in any way–although they do acknowledge that other countries may take a different approach.

Despite these reassurances, there have been some who have raised questions about the legality of these provisions. An organization known as California Reform Sex Offender Laws brought a lawsuit almost immediately after the law was passed. The right to travel freely is often discussed as a fundamental human right, so the concerns are not completely meritless. However, the goal of eliminating sex tourism is hard to argue with. To better understand the situation, let’s look at the original Megan’s Law, the International Megan’s Law, and the resolution of the lawsuit brought against the law.

The Original Megan’s Law

Megan’s Law is fairly well known, but for those unfamiliar it is the informal name for the laws creating the public registry of sex offenders. In the wake of the horrific rape and murder of a young girl named Megan Kanka, states across the nation created laws requiring registration after somebody is convicted. The laws vary a bit from state to state in terms of what information is publically available, what offenses require registration if convicted, requirements placed on registered offenders etc. Some common information that is publically available includes names, pictures, addresses, conviction/incarceration dates, and the type of crime they were convicted of.

The laws have occasionally faced challenges and criticism. These criticisms usually trend towards the laws either being overly restrictive or overbroad in who is required to register. For example, public urination is an offense that often requires registration. Another common criticism is that the laws tend to paint with broad strokes in terms of making little to moderate distinctions between types of offenses. Regardless of these criticisms, the laws have consistently been supported in the courts.

Potential Issues with The International Megan’s Law

The International Megan’s Law has a great deal more elements than the passport provisions discussed above. For example, in addition to the passport provisions, the law allows the U.S. to notify destination countries if an offender is travelling to their country. Stopping sex tourism is hard to argue with, especially when the provisions are exclusively targeted at sex offenders with crimes involving minors. However, this has certainly not stopped critics from commenting on the law. Surprisingly, not everything these critics say is necessarily completely off the mark.

As mentioned, the law was created to stymie sex tourism and child sex trafficking. When originally passed, representatives made it clear that no one law could totally stop these issues but argued that every step towards eliminating them was an important one. However, critics have pointed out that the issue targeted may have been more of a talking point than a realistic problem. In a five-year period, there were only three convictions for sexual offenses overseas out of the over 800,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. today. What’s more, statistics do seem to show than the percentage of registered offenders who commit similar crimes again is very low–in the realm of 3%. The critics argue that the new passports are a sort of “Scarlett Letter” singling out registered offenders even more than before and that the law does not address a problem as widespread as Congress suggested or effectively deal with sex tourism. These criticisms led to the lawsuit discussed above from the California Reform Sex Offenders Laws.

The Arguments of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit primarily focused on how much the laws could limit travel and how potentially overbroad the provisions were–including those convicted of crimes such as sexting or public urination. The plaintiffs in the case included several people who specifically highlighted this potential over breadth and would need special passports–a man whose conviction had been expunged, a man sentenced to only probation and not required to register because his crime was particularly minor, and a man convicted 25 years ago. At least one of these three was required to routinely travel to China for work, so the passport requirement hit him particularly close to home. The lawsuit argued that the law was unconstitutional because it compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, retroactively punishes people (generally a legal no-no), denied them equal protection of the law and denied them the right to legal process in defending their passports. The court in question did not buy any of these arguments and dismissed the case in September of 2016.

The judge ruled that the lawsuit, brought before passport provisions had taken effect, had no actual injury but only a speculative one–an actual injury is required for standing to challenge a law. However, the judge still took the time to rule that despite not having standing the case would have lost anyway. Government speech, such as the contents of a passport or driver’s license, is not protected by the First Amendment. Court’s have long held that registration of sex offenders–no matter how substantial or far reaching the impact on a registrant’s life–don’t implicate retroactive punishment issues as they are not punitive measures. The judge also ruled that the registrants already got their due process–when they were first convicted of the crime they had to register for. Finally, she ruled that there was no constitutionally protected class that was targeted by the law and that it only required a rational basis–the least rigorous constitutionality test–to be considered constitutional. The judge said that the International Megan’s Law met this test.

Law Potentially More Effective Than Anticipated

As of now, the International Megan’s Law and its passport provisions are constitutional. However, with the passport provisions taking effect there is an actual harm that may give a lawsuit standing to challenge the law and the district court ruling on the matter. But, it looks like the provisions are here to stay. What’s more, it looks like they are having an effect.

The author of the law has said Thailand has expressed gratitude for the passage of the International Megan’s Law. Apparently, over 160 convicted sex offenders have been caught trying to enter the country.  It is not clear whether these offenders were entering for the purposes of sex tourism, but Thailand has an unfortunate reputation as destination for this sort of activity. Ultimately, it’s hard to argue against any step designed to reduce such heinous behavior. It is certainly crucially important to protect the constitutional rights of all–including those who have been convicted of a crime. The arguments that the potential benefits of the law could be outweighed by the harm they do isn’t one to dismiss out of hand. However, for now the International Megan’s Law is a constitutional law protecting children across the world.

ICE in Hot Water For Arresting Oregon Man Without a Warrant

Federal immigration agents were filmed arresting a man working inside an Oregon home, even though the self-described agents admitted they didn’t have a warrant to be inside the house. George Cardenas and Carlos Bolanos were hired to remodel a home when two men and a woman claiming to be U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement knocked on the door. Cardenas opened the door to inquire who it was, then Cardenas claims he went back inside without inviting them in.

Nevertheless, the three of them stepped inside anyway and claimed they were there to arrest Carlos Bolanos for being in the country illegally. At that point, Cardenas pulled out his cell phone and started filming the agents inside the house. When asked to identify themselves, the self-proclaimed agents refused to give their names. Cardenas said the homeowner was on the way back and told the agents they were trespassing by entering the house without the owner’s permission.

ICEAfter seven minutes, the agents surrounded Bolanos while he is talking on a cellphone. They took the phone from one hand and a paintbrush from another as an agent warns him not to resist. Cardenas said Bolanos has four children in Oregon, and that they’re all US citizens. Nevertheless, the agents pulled him out of the house.

U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeffrey Merkley said that the incident was “deeply troubling” and that they were inquiring with ICE about exactly what happened. Bolanos was set free after Cardenas’s video went viral. “I think the outcome would have definitely been different if I didn’t record (the incident) or if I wasn’t a U.S. citizen,” Cardenas said.

The “Agents” Should Not Have Entered the House

While ICE has legal authority to make arrests, they cannot ignore Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections while doing so. These amendments are not merely red tape. The Fourth Amendment keeps the federal government out of people’s homes unless the government has a warrant. This protection applies to all homes, regardless of the immigration status of the people inside.  The Fifth Amendment requires that all persons be given due process before any kind of government action can be taken against that person. These protections are especially important in deportation proceedings, otherwise the government can deport whoever they accuse of being here illegally, regardless of whether ICE is telling the truth or not.

In the video, the agents argued that they didn’t need a warrant because the house was a “business” and therefore the Fourth Amendment shouldn’t apply. The agents were absolutely wrong. The warrant requirement applies to commercial buildings. It didn’t matter if the house was being used for business or for residence, the agents either needed the homeowners consent or a warrant signed by a judge.

There was also a dispute as to whether Cardenas invited them inside. Law enforcement do not need a warrant if they have consent to enter. Cardenas might not be the owner, but his permission would likely suffice. The parties disagree as to whether leaving the door open means Cardenas gives his consent. Even if leaving the door open is a non-verbal method of communicating consent though, it’s quite obvious from the video that Cardenas did not intend to. Even if he did, Cardenas later revoked his consent, as he demanded the agents wait outside until the owner arrived.

One of the most troubling aspects of this story is that ICE agents are making arrests without properly identifying themselves. The agents were out of uniform, refused to give their names, and the only thing identifying them as agents was a keychain around one of the “agents” necks. This is extremely dangerous; if agents do not identify themselves, then anyone can claim to be an ICE agent. If purported ICE agents refuse to reveal their legal authority other than their word, they should subject to all criminal laws that citizens are usually subject to. If the men and woman were not federal agents or acted outside their authority as federal agents, then they should be charged with kidnapping under state law.

Federal Judge Rules Attorney General Sessions Cannot Withhold Grants from Sanctuary Cities

Out in Illinois, a federal court has recently ruled that Attorney General Sessions cannot fully follow through on his threat to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. In a campaign and presidency that has made immigration one of its most spoken on and contentious issues, the idea of sanctuary cities-cities refusing to fully cooperate with immigration investigations-is something that President Trump has revisited again and again. Trumps’ own steps to take rights away from immigrants-such as his recent DACA declarations-have only exacerbated the matter as the number of cities with laws limiting how state law enforcement may interact with immigration agents and ICE grows.

Several states such as California, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have laws in place limiting police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. However, it is Chicago-a state with a similar law of its own-that has brought the first successful challenge to Sessions’ immigration compliance requirements on federal funds-specifically the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (better known as the Byrne JAG grant).

The ruling out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has determined that part-but not all-of the restrictions AG Sessions has place on Byrne JAG grants are unconstitutional-an undeniable, if not complete, victory for cities with laws like Chicago’s across the nation. The ruling places a nationwide stop on the portions of the restrictions the court ruled unconstitutional.  Let’s look at the limitations Sessions attempted to place on these grants and the court’s ruling.

attorney general sessionsSessions’ Restrictions on Grant Funding

Sessions’ restrictions on funding, announced by the Attorney General back in July of this year, placed two new conditions on the ability to receive funds through Byrne JAG grants. First, requiring local authorities to tell federal agents before people suspected of immigration violations were released from jail, detention facility, or really any type of correctional facility. Second, state authorities had to give immigration access to detention facilities and to the people in those facilities. This was on top of a condition added back in 2016 which required cities and states receiving Byrne JAG funds to certify that they wouldn’t restrict state and local law enforcement from sharing information with Immigration and Naturalization Services when it comes to somebody’s citizenship status.

These Byrne JAG grants are generally used to support and outfit state and local law enforcement across the country so these additional requirements had the potential for serious national impact. Normally, Byrne JAG grants are given based on a statutory formula based on population and the amount of reported violent crimes. Chicago has received this grant money every year since 2005-including last year when it was required to certify that it would not restrict law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities. In fact, just last year it was given a little over $2.3M.

Chicago itself has had rules limiting law enforcement’s participation in federal immigration investigations in place since the mid-80s and codified those rules into law over a decade ago. The rules also prevent city agents and agencies form requesting or telling giving others information about somebody’s citizenship. In 2012, these rules were taken even one step further to specifically deny immigration agents access to Chicago facilities and to deny immigration detainer requests (requests for local police to hold somebody on suspicion of an immigration issue) unless specific criteria are met.

These policies-known as the Welcoming City Ordinance-have been in place so long because, according to Chicago, they have created safer streets by allowing the immigrant community to feel safe talking to law enforcement. However, as a potential “sanctuary city,” Sessions’ restrictions had a chance to seriously impact Chicago’s ability to fund its law enforcement. Thus, it’s no surprise they were quick to challenge their constitutionality.

The Court’s Ruling

Chicago challenged the constitutionality of AG Sessions’ restrictions on two primary grounds. First, that Congress never granted Sessions the power to restrict Byrne JAG grants in this manner. Second, that even if Congress did give Sessions that power the restrictions themselves impinged on the Constitutional rights of the states.

On the most recent restrictions, the ones dealing with reporting and access to detention centers, the court determined that AG Sessions simply overstepped his bounds. Congress not only didn’t give him the power to make such limitations on these grants, they explicitly gave the power to somebody else. While Sessions argued he’d been given broad power to make such restrictions in an older act of Congress, the court felt that if such a grant had been given Congress wouldn’t have needed to give the AG the limited powers to restrict these grants that it did-the power to require a certification that a grantee will comply with all federal laws.

With only this limited power at the AG’s disposal, both the most recent restrictions on these grants were an overreach and thus unconstitutional. However, Sessions does have the power to require certifications as he did with last year’s additional restriction. This meant that this third restriction would only be unconstitutional if it violated some other part of the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment means that the federal government can’t generally force the states to legislate or act in a certain way. Nor can they force state agents such as state police to act in a certain way. They can, however, often tie funds to certain behavior. Chicago argued that the restrictions were violating the 10th Amendment by forcing them to allow state agents to report to the federal government. However, Congress has broad power to legislate when it comes to immigration. What’s more, these very restrictions have already been ruled by another court to not violate the 10th amendment-drawing a potentially questionable distinction between forcing a state to act and preventing the state from directly restricting its officials from acting. The court primarily looked at the fact that the requirements don’t force any active legislation or make state agents act on the federal government’s behalf. Thus, the certification requirement from last year was ruled constitutional.

Ruling Still a Partial Victory for AG Sessions

This ruling takes away the most controlling parts of AG Sessions’ restrictions. However, what is left will still allow for the potential to withhold funds from many states. Chicago is far from alone in its Welcoming City Ordinance, many cities and states have similar provisions. These laws have become particularly contentious in recent months.

California has been moving forward on bills to increase protection from undocumented students in public schools. At the same time, Mississippi and Texas have passed laws barring local ordinances creating “sanctuary cities.” Alabama passed legislation targeting universities attended by undocumented immigrants. The controversy on this issue has just begun and will only continue to heat up. Even this ruling will likely be appealed by the federal government. However, even with what’s left, there is a real possibility the AG Sessions will have the oomph to follow through on some of his threats to funding for cities not cooperating with federal immigration officials.