Indiana’s immigration law reeling
Attorneys say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case likely dooms parts of Indiana’s law.
Attorneys say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case likely dooms parts of Indiana’s law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday affirmed in part and reversed in part Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The justices also found that a life sentence without possibility of parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.
Three immigration clinic students from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law have won political asylum for two people – a young woman who fled to the United States after being subjected to female genital mutilation and a young man who feared persecution in Zimbabwe because of his HIV status.
Highly skilled immigrants are the focus of 2 bills introduced in Congress.
An Indianapolis television station ran a series of reports in May about a “loophole” in the law that allows undocumented immigrants to claim tax credits for children living in other countries. But the reports – which relied on an anonymous tax preparer as a key source – failed to disclose the role of some tax preparers in filing bogus tax returns.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a bank did not violate a woman’s rights by terminating her employment because of her husband’s immigration status.
A defendant’s trial counsel was deficient by not advising his client about the risk of deportation following a guilty plea, but the defendant wasn’t prejudiced by the performance, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded.
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that stems from its 2010 decision Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the justices held that criminal defense attorneys are obligated under the Sixth Amendment to advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The justices will now rule on whether its decision is retroactive.<
A divided Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of a Marion Superior judge that denied a California attorney’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by Herbert and Bui Simon for lack of personal jurisdiction. The lawsuit stems from comments the attorney made to an Indianapolis television station regarding lawsuits involving the Simons.
Valparaiso University School of Law will host a conference on children and immigration from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Feb. 10 at Wesemann Hall.
The Indiana Court of Appeals found police should have given a Spanish-speaking man arrested for driving without receiving a license a Miranda warning before he filled out an information sheet. As a result of his answers, police later charged him with forgery because his name on the sheet didn’t match what he provided to his employer.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of La Union Benefica Mexicana, a nonprofit organization in East Chicago, protesting two previously unchallenged portions of Indiana’s new immigration law.
The Supreme Court of the United States has accepted several cases, including the high-profile Arizona immigration lawsuit and a bankruptcy case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a man’s petitions for post-conviction relief, finding his attorneys’ failure to advise him of adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty did not prejudice his defense.
States differ on interpretation of federal law, create state statutes addressing in-state status for college students.
State tuition law creates chasm between undocumented immigrants and college.
Legal community works to ensure defendants know plea agreements could impact immigration status.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed motions in federal court Tuesday asking that the federal government be joined as a necessary party to the state’s immigration lawsuit.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it does not have jurisdiction to review immigration orders denying a specialized visa to a non-citizen trying to stay in the country after assisting in an investigation or prosecution.
A three-judge panel for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined a landmark decision from the Supreme Court of the United States last year isn't retroactive. That rule required criminal defense attorneys to advise clients about the immigration impact of signing a guilty plea, and this means past cases wouldn’t benefit from that holding even if those individuals had been deprived of that Sixth Amendment right.