The Associated Press reports that the State Board of Education is considering whether to appeal a court decision that would let U.S. born, Florida residents who are children of undocumented immigrants pay in-state tuition. U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore last month ruled that public colleges and universities cannot charge students higher out-of-state tuition simply because their parents are undocumented immigrants. The board, however, likely will not make a decision on an appeal until after District Judge Moore issues a final written order. The board oversees Florida's 28 state and community colleges.

UPDATE: The Florida Current reports that the State Board of Education delayed its decision on whether to appeal a judge's ruling that would require in-state tuition rates for Florida residents who are the dependent children of undocumented immigrants. The board postponed its decision because District Judge Moore has yet to issue a final written order. Board members were also notified of a second lawsuit in which the board, the Senate president, and the Speaker of the House are defendants. The plaintiffs in Citizens for Strong Schools v. Haridopolos allege the state is breaching its constitutional duty to provide a high quality system of free public schools. The complaint cites insufficient funding, inadequate resources and unsafe schools.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/09/4893780/florida-panel-considering-immigrant.html

http://www.thefloridacurrent.com/article.cfm?id=29716440

*****

AL.com reports that the U.S. Justice Department and a group of 36 plaintiffs will not challenge a recent Alabama immigration ruling. According to The Montgomery Advertiser, under Alabama's new immigration law, students were required to provide a birth certificate or a statement of their immigration status to a school district. After issuing an injunction against the section last year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last August that the provision violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In spite of the ruling, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a lawsuit recently against the Alabama Department of Education seeking to access records the organization says shows the impact of the school reporting provision in the state's immigration law. The Civil Rights Division requested the information near the end of 2011, saying the Alabama law discouraged Hispanic students from attending school. Consequently, school data showed that 13.4 percent of Hispanic students withdrew from public schools between September 2011 and February 2012 and Hispanic absence rates during that period tripled those of white and black students. The SPLC said they requested the data through a Freedom of Information act request, which the department has not yet acted on.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Alabama's request for a rehearing.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20121010/NEWS02/310090020/SPLC-sues-Alabama-Department-Education-over-enrollment-records

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/10/us_justice_department_plaintif.html

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/10/11th_circuit_rejects_alabama_r.html

*****

The Associated Press reports that the case of Jose Godinez-Samperio, a Florida immigrant trying to obtain a law license in the U.S., has met skepticism from most of the state's Supreme Court justices. Jose Godinez-Samperio came to the U.S. with his parents on visitors' visas when he was 9 years old, but the family never returned to Mexico. He graduated from New College in Florida, earned a law degree from Florida State University and passed the state bar exam last year. The Board of Bar Examiners in Florida found no reason to deny the 25 year old Godinez-Samperio a license but asked the state's high court for guidance. While Justice Barbara Pariente compared Godinez-Samperio's status to someone who doesn't pay federal income tax, she later suggested that the court could temporarily license Godinez-Samperio. The seven justices questioned lawyers about the possibility of a limited license that would let Godinez-Samperio do free legal work and discussed delaying their decision to see if he obtains a work permit under President Obama's "deferred action" policy.

Justice Charles Canady expressed reservations, citing a federal law prohibits state agencies from licensing undocumented immigrants. Godinez-Samperio's attorney and former American Bar Association president Talbot D'Alemberte said the federal law doesn't apply because the Florida Supreme Court is not an "agency." He also argued that states have a constitutional right to decide who practices in their courts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/undocumented-immigrant-in-fla-law-license_n_1935733.html

*****

The Associated Press reports that the US Supreme Court has declined to review a 27-year prison term issued to a former kosher slaughterhouse executive, Sholom Rubashkin, who was convicted of financial fraud following a huge immigration raid at the Iowa plant. Rubashkin was convicted of a scheme to cheat the plant's lender out of $27 million by submitting fake invoices that made its finances appear healthier than they were. His arrest came after immigration authorities raided the plant and arrested 389 undocumented immigrants. Rubaskhin filed for an appeal, stating that his term was too long for a first-time, non-violent offender.

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20792&Itemid=57

*****

The Associated Press reports a federal appeals court has ruled that immigration officials must give priority status to thousands of green card applicants who lost their place in line for U.S. residency when they turned 21. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided recently that the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) wrongly determined the applicants were no longer eligible for special visas as children of green card holders after they turned 21. The immigration service said those children who "aged out" during the process lost their place in line, even if the parents' application took years to process. The court ruled 6-5 court otherwise, saying the applicants may keep the "priority dates" established when their parents filed for a derivative visa for their children. The court's decision will affect tens of thousands of children living in the United States and abroad who have "aged out" of the green card process.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/27/court-fast-tracks-some-green-card-applications/57847814/1

*****

The Associated Press reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal by a coalition of civil rights groups that are challenging Arizona's immigration law. The appeal sought to bar the law which requires police to question the immigration status of those they stop for other legal reasons. The coalition's lawyers say the dismissal was needed because it would be quicker to continue challenging the law in a lower court rather than tying up the case for months in an appeals court.

http://www.necn.com/10/18/12/Court-dismisses-appeal-by-critics-of-Ari/landing_nation.html?&apID=4bcbbb4fea60482cbb978698a2ccab94

*****

The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court recently denied Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's request to reverse a lower-court decision barring his deputies from detaining people solely on the suspicion that they're undocumented immigrants. The appeals court ruling focused only on the lower court's limits on Arpaio's immigration powers and doesn't confront the case's ultimate question of whether deputies of Maricopa County racially profiled Latinos on their patrols. A small group of Latinos claim Arpaio's deputies pulled over some vehicles only to make immigration status checks during regular traffic patrols and the sheriff's 20 special immigration patrols. A federal judge in December ordered Arpaio's department to refrain from conducting such traffic stops while the class action suit was being considered. Arpaio argued his deputies had probable cause to make stops. The Latino group also accuses Arpaio of ordering some of the patrols based on complaints about people with dark skin congregating in an area or speaking Spanish rather than on reports of crime. There have never been any findings by a court that Arpaio's office has racially profiled Latinos, though a case that made such allegations was settled last year for $200,000 without an admission of wrongdoing by the sheriff's office.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/26/az-sheriff-joe-arpaio-loses-appeal-on-immigration-law-limit/

*****

< Back | Index | Next >

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.