Public Interest Attorney Notes Amicus Role For Immigration

Writing for the “Above The Law” website, attorney Sam Wright makes a case for increasing the role that amicus briefs might play for immigration court policies. Sam Wright, described as “a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart public interest lawyer,” focuses on the specific case of Cristoval Silva-Trevino, the subject of a Texas-based case with national implications.

A federal circuit court recently issued the latest guidelines in a years-long struggle over the case, but Wright makes the point that amicus briefs played an important role. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center offered its opinion, along with another organization that the Center considers a hate-associated group.

See how it plays out, read here.

The Case For ‘Gideon’ For Domestic Violence Victims

We’ve made the case for some level of “civil Gideon” for years. That’s the idea that some civil actions, like eviction or child custody, rise to a life-changing level that requires the kind of legal guarantee we have in teh criminal system – you know, if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided. Now Melissa Jeltsen, a senior editor at The Huffington Post, makes that case that people facing domestic violence should make that list.

“Lawyers are expensive, and women who need them often can’t afford them,” she notes. “Without legal counsel, it can be harder for women to get protective orders, leave their abusive partners and escape the cycle of violence. And women stuck in violent relationships tend to miss work because of injury or rack up hospital bills they can never pay off, according to the report by The Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank.

With one in four women in the U.S. estimated to become victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, this dynamic has major economic repercussions. As the report notes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that domestic violence costs the U.S. at least $9.05 billion each year.”

Uber Car-Under Fire From Coast To Coast

The Uber car-hailing app is under legal pressure from coast to coast, and managed to be featured in both the New York and Los Angeles Times this week. The more serious story is out of San Francisco, the home of Uber, where an administrative judge recommended that the ride-sharing giant be fined $7.3 million and be suspended from operating in California.

 

The LAT reports that, “… in her decision, chief administrative law judge Karen V. Clopton of the California Public Utilities Commission contended that Uber has not complied with state laws designed to ensure that drivers are doling out rides fairly to all passengers, regardless of where they live or who they are. She said Uber’s months-long refusal to provide such data is in violation of the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing firms.”

 

The paper reported that Uber said it would appeal.

 

In New York, a City Council vote is expected as early as next week, says the NYT, “… on a proposal that would place a cap on Uber’s growth, pending a study of traffic patterns, the sides have become entangled in a protracted struggle, on camera and off, over the future of mobility in the city.” Uber says that would “break” it in NYC. And it’s not just in the United States. The European governments or taxi companies. More than a dozen lawsuits have been filed in recent months in countries across the continent, where some analysts say the company is in danger of being shut down or becoming so entangled in legislation as to be neutered.

 

Read up on the latest here.

AP Tells Of ‘Border Kids’ Trapped In Immigration Court Hell

Photo from Associated Press report, 7/4/15

1-year-old Joshua Tinoco faces deportation. Photo from Associated Press report, 7/4/15.

The Associated Press reports on 1-year-old Joshua Tinoco, who pauses while playing at his relative’s home in Los Angeles. Writing from Los Angeles, Amy Taxin tells the story of a 1-year-old facing deportation even as his mother is allowed to stay.

Taxin writes that “… at a brief hearing, a government lawyer tells the teenage mother that her son is an immigration enforcement priority for the United States and should be sent back to his native Honduras even though she is being allowed to stay and seek a green card.”

The story goes behind the numbers to outline human conditions. It also reminds us of some staggering numbers: More than 57,000 unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras arrived on the border in the last fiscal year, and since then another 18,000, government statistics show. Immigration courts have fast-tracked the cases in a bid to stem a growing backlog.

It’s an AP story, and they have legs. Let’s hope this one gets around.

California, Texas Lead In Immigration Court Delays

It may the one of the few places where Texas does not mind being second to California: immigration case backlog. A Houston Chronicle newspaper report notes that  “… the stack of cases at Texas’ overburdened immigration courts grew by nearly 60 percent since October 2013, bringing the state’s pending cases to a record high of nearly 77,000, making it the largest backlog in the country after California.”
 
The delays are truly staggering, especially for younger people. The Chronicle says “… nationwide it now takes an average of 604 days to process an immigration case, according to an analysis of federal data through April by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. In Houston, where the pending case load grew by 13 percent from late 2013 to nearly 32,000 so far this year, the highest in the state, the delay is 636 days.”
 
That’s to be “processed.” Some cases are taking five years to resolve. The HC explained that “… the long overburdened and underfunded immigration court system has been further overwhelmed by the influx of more than 67,000 unaccompanied Central American children who streamed across the Southwest border in 2014. In response, the Obama administration prioritized their cases and those of other migrants who arrived here last year to deter more from coming.” That means folks waiting years for a day in court might have to wait years longer.
 
(Immigration courts are not criminal courts, but rather an administrative function of the Justice Department and are considered civil cases.) Read more here.