Enforcing our Federal, State, & Local Immigration Laws

 

A founding principle of the United States that sets us apart from many nations is that we are a government of laws, not of men. Neither federal, state, or local governments, nor any branch of government, is above the law, nor may any public official act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. This concept is known as the “rule of law” and undergirds all other rights.

 

Although Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration laws,

some unscrupulous federal, state, and local officials nonetheless insist on acting outside the law and undermining this interest for political expediency. That’s where IRLI comes in!

For more than three decades, IRLI has served as the American people’s immigration enforcement watchdog, ensuring our federal, state, and local immigration laws are enforced. To be sure, federal officials have a duty to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress, whether they agree with them or not. Moreover, state and local officials may not interpret or apply state or local law so as to obstruct federal law.

 

Indeed, federal law encourages state and local governments to cooperate in immigration enforcement. The ability of federal immigration authorities to stem the harmful effects of illegal immigration and to apprehend and remove lawbreakers is dependent upon it.

 

In addition to assisting federal immigration authorities, states and localities can also legally enact their own laws that discourage illegal immigration. For instance, they can limit taxpayer-funded benefits to citizens and legal residents, require work authorization verification using the federal E-Verify program, and suspend or revoke business licenses of employers who refuse to comply with the federal government’s prohibition on employing unauthorized aliens.

 

IRLI has been a national leader in seeking to ensure these and other immigration-related laws passed by federal, state, and local governments are enforced and defended.

 

 

 

9-11 Families for a Secure America v. Echalar

IRLI represented David King, a survivor of the attack on the Pentagon, and Debra Burlingame, and the 9-11 Families for a Secure America, Inc. (relatives of victims of the 9-11 attacks) in a lawsuit brought by thirteen aliens and one unincorporated association, represented by CASA de Maryland and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, against officials of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), claiming their constitutional rights had been violated when MDOT and MVA officials declined pursuant to state law to accept foreign documents as evidence of eligibility to obtain state driver’s licenses.

 

View case

 

 

Alabama v. United States

IRLI filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Supreme Court in a federal lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration against the State of Alabama to challenge several provisions of the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.

 

View case

 

 

Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer

IRLI filed multiple briefs in support of the State of Arizona who was sued by an illegal alien pressure group to force the state into granting eligibility for driver’s licenses to millions of illegal aliens falling under the Obama Administration’s lawless Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

 

View case

 

 

Buquer v. City of Indianapolis

IRLI represented several Indiana State Senators who sought to intervene as defendants in a challenge brought against an Indiana statute drafted with IRLI assistance that authorized state and local police to arrest an illegal immigrant when the officer has a removal order, a detainer issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or has probable cause that the illegal immigrant has been indicted or convicted of an aggravated felony.

 

View case

 

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Edmondson

IRLI represented several Oklahoma state legislators in defending House Bill (HB) 1804, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizenship Protection Act of 2007, a landmark bill that sought to alleviate the “economic hardship” in the state caused by “illegal immigration.” HB 1804, Sec. 2. HB 1804 also required state agencies to comply with federal law by verifying the eligibility of aliens seeking benefits and sought to stop the “harbor[ing] and shelter[ing]” of aliens through granting identification cards to them. Id.

 

View case

 

 

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Whiting

IRLI, in support of Arizona’s business licensing law that imposes sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the court affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the law, which it did.

 

View case

County of Maricopa v. Lopez-Valenzuela

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the state of Arizona’s petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court that requested the court review the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s striking down of a 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that denied bail to individuals who are charged with one of the four most serious categories of felonies, and for whom there is both probable cause that the person is illegally present in the U.S. and evident proof of guilt of the felony charged.

 

View case

 

 

Doe v. City of Vista

IRLI represented a citizen of the City of Vista, California as an intervenor in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California seeking to stop the citizen from obtaining information under the California Public Records Act about employers who hire day laborers, many of whom are illegal aliens, under a new city ordinance requiring employer registration.

 

View case

 

 

Estrada v. Rhode Island

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the -court brief on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police (“the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, representing more than 325,000 members”) in a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several illegal aliens detained during a traffic stop who were subsequently turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation.

 

View case

 

Federation for American Immigration Reform v. Schaaf

IRLI sued Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf and members of her senior staff, seeking communications records related to her statement alerting illegal aliens in her community about a pending immigration enforcement raid earlier this year. The suit was filed on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. Schaaf’s office has failed to produce these records pursuant to a California Public Records Act request.

View case

Federation for American Immigration Reform v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IRLI, on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) concerning, among other things, certain DHS directives sent to ICE attorneys ordering them to no longer vigorously pursue cases in removal proceedings and to commit to a greater exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.”

View case

Federation for American Immigration Reform v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IRLI, on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) related to procedures for worksite enforcement activities conducted during the Obama administration. 

View case

Flores-Villar v. United States

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the U.S. Government’s position stating that Congress had exclusive power to formulate rules pertaining to citizenship in a lawsuit brought by a Mexican national challenging federal law that denied him U.S. citizenship.

 

View case

 

 

Friendly House v. Napolitano

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, intervened as a defendant in a federal lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund against the Arizona governor, attorney general, and secretary of state challenging as unconstitutional Proposition 200, the “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act,” a ballot initiative passed by Arizona citizens to protect the state from voter fraud by requiring proof of citizenship to vote as well as requiring identification for the receipt of non-federal public benefits.

 

View case

 

 

Gonzales v. Arizona

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the State of Arizona in a lawsuit challenging the state’s law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote on federal forms and proof of identification at the polls.

 

View case

 

 

Gray v. City of Valley Park, Missouri

IRLI successfully represented the City of Valley Park, Missouri in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund challenging an ordinance (drafted with IRLI’s assistance) requiring businesses to use a federal worker verification program known as E-Verify in order to maintain a business license.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 15-08-26

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address whether the BIA could decline to follow the Third Circuit’s approach for determining if a conviction for marihuana possession under Pennsylvania state law was an aggravated felony. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, immigrants who commit aggravated felonies are subject to removal from the United States. The BIA also asked for advice on the related question of whether the Supreme Court’s use of the categorical approach for determining aggravated felonies had overruled the Third Circuit’s prior approach.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 15-09-28

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address whether the BIA could continue to use the “ordinary case” method to analyze aggravated felonies that fall within 8 U.S.C. § 16 in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision that found similar language in 8 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 15-11-10

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address the breadth of the definition of an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 16-01-11

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address whether the BIA should approve asylum applications based merely on claims of persecution or a fear of persecution as a result of family ties.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 16-03-17

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals defending the key requirement that every alien must be “admitted” to the United States in order to become eligible for the benefits and privileges that ours laws offer to aliens who respect our laws.

 

View case

 

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 16-06-09

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals to address three questions: (1) whether for immigration law purposes a “minor” should be defined as an individual under the age of 18 or 21; (2) whether being under the age of 21 creates exceptional circumstances to allow for a delay in filing an asylum application; and (3) what is a reasonable delay in filing an asylum application due to exceptional circumstances.

View case

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 16-06-21

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals to answer several complex questions posed by the Board in a case regarding an alien who suffers from a mental health condition.

View case

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-12

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals in response to the BIA’s request for briefing on whether an alien who committed marriage fraud in a prior visa petition can have a subsequent visa petition denied on marriage fraud grounds or whether an independent investigation must be conducted to determine if marriage fraud occurred.

View case

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No.  17-06-12

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals in response to the BIA’s request for briefing on whether the crime of robbery by sudden snatching is a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT). An alien convicted of a CIMT is removable from the United States under law.

View case

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No.  18-02-14

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals in response to the BIA’s request for briefing on whether an alien can be removed for committing an aggravated felony when the state statute the alien violated includes more than one kind of aggravated felony.

View case

In the Matter of Amicus Invitation No.  18-02-27

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Board of Immigration Appeals in response to the BIA’s request for briefing in which an alien who is a convicted drug offender is trying to stay in the country on a technicality. The decision he is asking the BIA to make would enable many other criminal aliens like himself to escape removal from the United States.

 

View case

In the Matter of C-T-L

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address the burden of proof required for aliens who have filed a Withholding of Removal (WOR) petition and primarily whether the “one central reason” standard had any effect on the burden of proof required for WOR.

 

View case

In the Matter of Cristoval Silva-Trevino

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address (1) How adjudicators are to determine whether a particular criminal offense is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under the Act; (2) When, and to what extent, adjudicators may use a modified categorical approach and consider a record of conviction in determining whether an alien has been “convicted of … a crime involving moral turpitude” in applying section 212(a)(2) of the Act and similar provisions; and (3) Whether an alien who seeks a favorable exercise of discretion under the Act after having engaged in criminal acts constituting the sexual abuse of a minor should be required to make a heightened evidentiary showing of hardship or other factors that would warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of E-S-I

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address who must be served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) where the alien charged is mentally incompetent, in three circumstances: When the alien is (1) confined in an institution, (2) confined in an institution not operated by or affiliated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (3) not confined in an institution. The BIA then asked (4) what information should the DHS consider when making a determination about whether or not a person is mentally incompetent for purposes of serving the NTA, and (5) what is the appropriate action for the Immigration Judge (IJ) to take if the DHS does not properly serve a mentally incompetent person.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of G M-L

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address whether an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction to hold a custody redetermination hearing pursuant to the Order and Permanent Injunction in Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 2:07-CV-03239, 2013 WL 5229795 (C.D. Cal. Aug 6, 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-56706 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013) for a respondent incarcerated outside the central district of California for reinstatement under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of I-S-

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address whether, pursuant to a grant of withholding of removal (WOR) to Respondents under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §241(b)(3), the Immigration Judge was obligated to enter an order of removal and to designate alternative countries, using the procedure in INA §241(b)(2), where the threat to Respondent’s life or freedom which formed the basis of the decision to grant WOR, is not present.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of J C-C

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address whether certain California controlled substances laws qualify as aggravated felonies under the U.S. Supreme Court’s modified categorical approach to comparing state and federal criminal laws for sentence enhancement and immigration removal purposes.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of J.D.J.M.-C (R.D.L.F., C.G., E.N.-C, J.C.-P, J.M.-P)

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling (Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)), requiring custody determinations for a class of aliens detained longer than six months.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of J.D.-R.

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address whether single possession drug offenses should be looked at on a circumstance specific manner or whether the BIA should determine the offense using a categorical approach.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of J-S

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address the proper allocation of the burden of proof on issues regarding mental competency in immigration proceedings, and in particular whether an approach adopted by the Ninth Circuit to mental incompetency in habeas corpus proceedings in the case of In Mason ex. rel. Marson v. Vasquez, 5 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993), provided the Board with guidance as to the burden of proof question in immigration proceedings.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of K-C-

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address whether U.S. asylum and refugee law does extends to most claims of persecution based on acts of domestic violence committed by private persons in an overseas household.

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of L-T-

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address: (1) What circumstances, if any, trigger the need for an Immigration Judge to make a competency assessment; (2) Whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the appropriate authority to conduct a competency examination; (3) Who has the authority to appoint a legal representative, guardian or custodian; (4) Whether termination of proceedings is an appropriate safeguard for an aggravated felon alien; and (5) Whether circumstances are changed if the incompetent alien claims United States citizenship (represented and unrepresented).

 

View case

 

 

In the Matter of M.N. M-G.

IRLI, on behalf of its client the Federation for American Immigration Reform, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals to address: (1) What impact does the Vartelas v. Holder decision have on the 5th Circuit decisions in Carranza-De Salina v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2007), and Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516 (5th cir. 2006), which require an alien convicted at trial prior to April 24, 1996, to demonstrate actual and substantial reliance to pursue a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Act; (2) Assuming that after Vartelas reliance is not a prerequisite to establishing eligibility for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Act where an alien’s qualifying conviction occurred after a trial, (a) what role does reliance play in assessing an alien’s ability to apply for a 212(c) waiver and (b) what factors should be considered in making a determination regarding prima facie eligibility; and What impact does the Vartelas decision have on the regulatory restrictions for 212(c) relief set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3, particularly with respect to aliens convicted at trial (see, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(h)).

 

View case

In the Matter of Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM

At the request of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) filed an important legal brief denouncing yet another unlawful de facto amnesty program operated by the Obama Administration: so-called “administrative closure.” The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) prepared the brief on FAIR’s behalf.

View case

In the Matter of Standing

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief at the request of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) addressing whether the beneficiaries of certain immigrant visa petitions have standing to participate in the administrative adjudication process, including standing to appeal to the AAO (and if so, when, and under what circumstances).

 

View case

 

 

Keller v. City of Fremont

IRLI successfully represented the City of Fremont, Nebraska in defending against a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund challenging an ordinance passed by voters that prohibited the employment and harboring of illegal aliens in the city.

 

View case

 

 

Kiyemba v. Obama

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the United States Government in a lawsuit brought by seventeen Chinese citizens captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba as enemy combatants who sought an order compelling their release into the United States.

 

View case

 

 

Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the states of Kansas and Arizona’s petition for writ of certiorari endeavoring to enforce their state registration laws that require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

 

View case

 

 

La Raza v. Herbert

IRLI submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit brought by the open-borders special interest group Utah Coalition of La Raza (“the race”) and others challenging as unconstitutional Utah’s House Bill 497 which authorized state and local police to verify a person’s identity and immigration status during a lawful stop. La Raza argued that the law was preempted by prosecutorial discretion memoranda issued by officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that prioritize removals from the United States.

 

View case

 

 

League of Women Voter of the United States v. Newby

IRLI represented Kris W. Kobach, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Kansas, in a lawsuit brought by several special interest groups and two individuals seeking to reverse the decision of the Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to grant Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia’s request to amend their state specific instructions that accompany the National Mail Voter Registration Form to include instructions regarding their respective state’s requirement in law that persons desiring to register to vote must provide proof of U.S. citizenship.

 

View case

 

 

Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion County Sheriff’s Department

IRLI filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit urging the Court to uphold the legality of local law enforcement’s compliance with immigration detainer requests by federal authorities.

View case

Lozano v. City of Hazleton

IRLI represented the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania in a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of anonymous illegal aliens as well as landlords and businesses catering to unlawful aliens that challenged two Hazleton ordinances that prohibited business license holders from using unauthorized alien workers and landlords from knowingly renting properties to illegal aliens.

 

View case

 

 

Magee v. Central Alabama Fair Housing Center

IRLI filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of the state defendant in a lawsuit challenging Section 30 of Alabama House Bill 56, which prohibited unlawfully present aliens from entering into business transactions with the State of Alabama.

 

View case

 

 

Martinez v. City of Fremont

IRLI successfully represented the City of Fremont, Nebraska in defending against a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund challenging an ordinance passed by voters that prohibited the employment and harboring of illegal aliens in the city.

 

View case

 

 

Mathis v. United States

IRLI filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court that advocates removing certain criminal aliens from the United States. The case, Mathis v. United States, No. 15-6092, was appealed to the High Court by a five-time convicted felon, Richard Mathis, who is seeking to avoid having those convictions count toward a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA).

 

View case

 

 

Mendez v. Bradshaw

IRLI, as counsel for the Florida Sheriffs’ Association, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in a civil rights lawsuit brought by an alien jail inmate and special interest groups against the Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric L. Bradshaw, challenging his office’s adherence to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests.

 

View case

 

 

Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance v. Bullock

IRLI assisted the state of Montana’s solicitor general in defending a lawsuit brought by special interest groups and an individual born outside the United States that challenged a law passed overwhelmingly (just shy of 80%) by public referendum in 2012 which restricted state public benefits to U.S. citizens and legal residents.

 

View case

 

 

Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners

IRLI represented two deputy sheriffs, Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, and the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by an illegal alien when the deputies detained the alien after a standard warrant check in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center database showed a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement warrant for her immediate deportation for absconding from an immigration detention center in South Texas.

 

View case

 

 

United States v. Arizona

IRLI, in collaboration with the American Center for Law and Justice, filed amicus briefs supporting the State of Arizona in the district court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of numerous United States Representatives and Senators in a lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration to challenge Arizona’s landmark cooperative immigration enforcement law, known nationally as SB 1070.

 

View case

 

United States v. California

IRLI filed two friend-of-the-court briefs challenging California’s dangerous and unconstitutional sanctuary laws in support of the federal government’s lawsuit against these unlawful enactments. 

View case

United States v. Utah

IRLI filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the State of Utah in a federal lawsuit brought by a coalition of special interest organizations, including members who are illegal aliens, and the Obama Administration that sought to nullify an act that authorized Utah law enforcement agencies to verify the immigration status of persons encountered in lawful stops, detentions, or arrests, mandated state-wide uniformity in police agency enforcement of federal immigration control laws, and authorized certain arrests pursuant to these status verification and uniform enforcement standards.

 

View case

 

 

Valle del Sol v. Whiting

IRLI filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting Arizona in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several special interest groups and illegal aliens to challenge provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.

 

View case

 

 

Vasquez v. City of Farmers Branch

IRLI sought to intervene in a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund that challenged City of Farmers Branch Ordinance No. 2892 which required the city to verify the immigration status of all non-citizens issued rental licenses and terminate rental agreements with non-citizens who the federal government confirms are not lawfully present the United States.

 

View case

 

 

Vicente v. Barnett

IRLI represented Roger and Barbara Barnett, husband and wife Arizona cattle farmers whose ranch is located near the Mexican border, in a federal lawsuit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund on behalf of several illegal aliens who sued the Barnetts for turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol for trespassing on their land and illegally entering into the United States.

 

View case

 

 

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch

IRLI represented the City of Farmers Branch in a federal lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund that challenged Ordinance No. 2892 which required the city to verify the immigration status of all non-citizens issued rental licenses and terminate rental agreements with non-citizens who the federal government confirms are not lawfully present the United States.

 

View case

 

 

Yes on Proposition 200 v. Napolitano

IRLI represented citizens of Arizona and several groups in a state lawsuit to curb abuse of executive discretion when some of Arizona’s highest elected officials improperly sought to block full implementation of an initiative measure approved by over one million Arizona voters entitled the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act which, among other things, required state and local agencies that administer state and local public benefits that are not federally mandated to verify the immigration status of applicants and report any discovered violations to immigration authorities.

 

View case

IRLI is a supporting organization of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Copyright © 2019 Immigration Reform Law Institute. All rights reserved.