I was quoted in an LA Times article about the 9th circuit’s refusal to reinstate Trump’s travel ban. I stated the Supreme Court might find it easier to reject the travel ban based on a violation of existing law rather than constitutional grounds. “It is always hard to win an immigration case on constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court because immigration touches on foreign relations and national sovereignty issues. People outside the United States also generally don’t have U.S. constitutional rights. The combination of the two rulings provides a one-two punch against the executive order that will make it harder for the administration to win at the Supreme Court.”
The LA Times reports: many political and administrative challenges will arise if the Trump administration tries to implement merit-based immigration systems.
Trump’s fast-track deportations face a legal hurdle: Do unauthorized immigrants have a right to a hearing before a judge?
I spoke with the LA Times about two Supreme Court rulings, due by June, that may clarify constitutional protections for immigrants, but that would be just a start.
These executive orders concerning expedited removal have not received the same media attention as the travel bans. But they will eventually impact millions of more people. Many more people will be detained and deported, and we will be litigating this for years.
Read the rest at: