In a lawsuit claiming that there was a practice of abusive and unlawful raids of Latino homes by agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), high level supervisory personnel were entitled to qualified immunity since the plaintiffs failed to assert any plausible basis to impose liability on them for the purported abuses. Many allegations in the complaint were merely conclusory, and did not adequately set forth a theory of possible liability on the part of the supervisors, such as their knowledge of or acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct. Argueta v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, #10-1479, 643 F.3d 60 (3rd Cir. 2011).
     Upholding an injunction against the enforcement of portions of an Arizona state statute creating immigration-related state offenses, a federal appeals court found that issuance of the injunction was not an abuse of discretion, and that the trial court properly found that the provisions at issue were preempted by federal immigration law. Provisions enjoined included a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of anyone reasonably suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. U.S. v. Arizona, #10-16645, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7413 (9th Cir.).
     Ruling in a lawsuit filed by the federal government against the state of Arizona and its governor, a federal judge enjoined the enforcement of a number of controversial provisions of a new state immigration law, S.B.1070, including a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of anyone reasonably suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. The federal government focused on the argument that the enforcement of immigration law is its job and that the Arizona law is therefore preempted by federal law. Other critics of the Arizona law have argued that it will lead to "racial profiling." Other lawsuits are also pending challenging the statute. U.S.A. v. State of Arizona, #CV-10-1413, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Ariz. July 28, 2010).
     A woman from China and her husband sued the federal government and a number of officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors from her in return for assisting with her asylum application. He had the authority to grant her asylum request, eliminating the need for a formal hearing on it. When she refused to allow him to allegedly unzip and remove her pants, he denied her application A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit in part, as the plaintiff failed to establish that there was a specific duty violated under the Fifth Amendment or any evidence that could establish the existence of an unconstitutional policy. It did, however, reinstate an emotional distress claim, and stated that emotional distress suffered from such a request for sexual favors could potentially be proven and constitute an injury separate and apart from battery. The U.S. government is immune under the Federal Tort Claims Act from claims for battery committed by its employees.. Lu v. Powell, #08-56421, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18368 (9th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit claiming that the government's negligence resulted in the wrongful deportation of the plaintiff's son, brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the U.S. government was protected from the lawsuit by the discretionary function exception of the Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec, 2680(a). Castro v. U.S., #07-40416, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11241 (5th Cir.).
     Occupants of a van, containing between twelve and fourteen passengers, questioned by an officer following a traffic stop, claimed that he violated their civil rights by asking about their immigration status. The appeals court found that it was not clear that the brief questioning on the issue by the officer or the few minutes it took him to receive a response from immigration had resulted in the unreasonable extension of the time of the stop, or that he was required to have independent reasonable suspicion to make a brief inquiry into immigration status. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity on civil rights claims arising from asking the plaintiffs' status and contacting immigration, as well as requiring that the van go to the local immigration office, particularly as it appeared that many passengers in the van essentially admitted to being in the country illegally. The officer was also entitled to qualified immunity on claims under the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Prevention Act. Estrada v. Rhode Island, #09-1149, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2390 (1st Cir.).
     An intermediate California appeals court has upheld summary judgment for the defendants in a lawsuit challenging a Los Angeles Police Department policy barring officers from initiating action with the sole objective of discovering the immigration status of an individual, or arresting anyone for illegal entry into the U.S. The plaintiff was unable to show any instances where an officer was disciplined for violating the policy, barring an "as applied" challenge to the policy. There was no indication that police were prevented from voluntarily contacting federal immigration authorities in order to determine a person's immigration status. The court also rejected a facial challenge to the policy, finding no inevitable conflict between it and a federal law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373, which invalidates any state or local restrictions on voluntary exchange of information with federal immigration personnel, since only a hypothetical" conflict was presented. The court ruled that the policy was not preempted by federal law, but that a California state statute governing law enforcement cooperation with the federal Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.(ICE), Pen. Code Sec 834b, was itself so preempted. That statute says that California law enforcement agencies "shall fully cooperate" with ICE regarding any arrestee suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. This statute is preempted as an impermissible state regulation of immigration, the court stated, Sturgeon v. Bratton, #B209913, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 967 (2nd Dist.).
     A California taxpayer sought an order requiring local police in San Francisco to comply with California Health & Saf. Code, § 11369 which provides that “[w]hen there is reason to believe that any person arrested for a violation [of any of 14 specified drug offenses] may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.” He claimed that the police department was disregarding this statutory requirement. An intermediate California appeals court has overturned a trial court ruling holding that the state statute impermissibly interfered with the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration. The statute, the court held, did not require police to decide what persons should or should not be allowed into the country, how long they could stay, or what their permissible conduct was, but instead merely required that they notify the appropriate federal authorities when there was reason to believe that an arrestee was not a citizen. Further proceedings were therefore ordered on the plaintiff's claim. Fonseca v. Fong, #A120206, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1673 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.).
    An arrestee who is a citizen of Uruguay claimed that law enforcement personnel violated his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations treaty by failing to inform him about or provide him with the right to contact the Uruguayan consulate about his arrest. The court ruled that article 36 of the treaty did not confer individual rights on an arrestee that could be judicially enforced in U.S. courts, and the rights stated in the treaty were instead meant to aid in the exercise of "consular functions." The court therefore rejected his claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Gandara v. Bennett, No. 06-16088, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11088 (11th Cir.).
     Immigration rights groups failed to show any actual injury to any of their members from a federal government policy and practice of entering and distributing civil immigration information to state and local law enforcement through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and therefore had no standing to assert claims concerning that policy and practice in a lawsuit. National Council of La Raza v. Gonzales, No. 03-CV-6324, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1238 (E.D.N.Y.).[N/R]
     Federal trial court enjoins enforcement of municipal ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting apartments or houses to illegal aliens. The defendant city failed to show that such rental activity had the effect of increasing local crimes or otherwise endangered public welfare, health or safety. Questions remained as to whether federal immigration law preempted the city ordinance, and whether the ordinance was a violation of the right to due process of law. Garrett v. City of Escondido, No. 06CV2434, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93453 (S.D. Cal.). [N/R]