Obama’s immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left – Yahoo News

President Barack Obama’s executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation suffered a legal setback on Monday with an appeal to the Supreme Court now the administration’s only option. The 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to uphold a May injunction deals a blow to Obama’s plan, opposed by Republicans and challenged by 26 states. The Obama administration has said it is within its rights to ask the Department of Homeland Security to use discretion before deporting nonviolent migrants with U.S. family ties.
Source: Obama’s immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left – Yahoo News

Ryan rules out quick immigration reform

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday he will not consider or negotiate an immigration reform bill during President Obama’s tenure, ruling out calls to revive the issue in an effort to broaden GOP appeal to Latino voters before the 2016 election.
Source: Ryan rules out quick immigration reform: ‘I don’t think we can trust the president on this’ – LA Times

Attorneys Can Advise Clients to “Clean Up” Social Media Pages

The Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee said in a recent advisory opinion that attorneys may advise clients to “clean up” their social media pages ahead of litigation—including changes to privacy settings and removing information. FL social mediaThe advice is ethical as long as it is in compliance with substantive laws or rules and the information is preserved in some way—such as unlawful obstructive, alteration, or concealment of evidence. The opinion will become final unless commenting bar members seek review from the Board of Governors. The inquirer asked the following questions of the committee. Prior to filing suit:
  1. May a lawyer advise a client to remove posts, photos, and information from social media pages/accounts that are related to (and not related to ) the incident for which lawyer is retained?
  2. May a lawyer advise a client to change social media [profiles] privacy settings to remove pages/accounts from public view?
  3.  Must a lawyer advise a client not to remove posts, photos, videos, and information whether or not directly related to the litigation if the lawyer has advised the client to set privacy settings to not allow public access?
The ethics committee focused on Florida professional conduct rule 4-3.4(a) Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel and decided the question to ask is whether the information is relevant to a “reasonably foreseeable proceeding.” A recent decision in Root v. Balfour Construction, Inc. ruled discovery principles apply to social media information but it must be relevant to the case and admissible in court or lead to evidence that is admissible in court. 132 S.O.3d 867, 869-870 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014). The New York County Lawyers Association also addressed the issue of pre-litigation social media scrubbing. The opinion is followed by other states including North Carolina and Pennsylvania, which conclude the practice is admissible as long as the removal does not constitute spoliation and to advise client if the information is relevant to the suit. Determining what information is relevant is a factual question and is determined on a case-by-case basis, the opinion stated. by
Source: http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/08/attorneys-can-advise-clients-to-clean-up-social-media-pages/

San Francisco Shooting Brings Attention to “Sanctuary Cities” and Their Policies Regarding Undocumented Immigrants

Last week, amid an already heated discussion surrounding immigration reforms in the United States, the world learned of the shooting death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle by an undocumented immigrant in California. Ms. Steinle, while taking a walk on a popular San Francisco pier with her father Jim Steinle, was shot and later died at an area hospital. The shooter, a Mexican national illegally living in the country named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, has been arrested and is now in prison for the crime. He has entered a plea not of guilty. The shooting has brought San Francisco’s reputation as a “sanctuary city” to the forefront of the immigration discussion. According to an article by Michael Pearson on CNN.com entitled What’s a ‘sanctuary city,’ and why should you care?”there are multiple meanings for the term “sanctuary city” that vary from location to location. The most common description (since there are no legal definitions) is a place- either city, county or state- that “generally [has] policies or laws that limit the extent to which law enforcement or other government employees will go to assist the federal government on immigration matters” (Pearson, CNN.com). San Francisco is one such city that has laws and regulations that allow its employees to refuse to obey federal orders regarding immigration. Lopez-Sanchez is no stranger to the United States justice system as he has been arrested and deported multiple times before the shooting from last week. According to an article by The Associated Press found on NBCnews.com,
Federal records show Lopez-Sanchez had been deported three times before being sentenced to about five years in federal prison in 1998. He had finished his third stint in prison for re-entering the country illegally when he was sent to San Francisco March 26 on an outstanding 1995 drug charge.   The San Francisco district attorney’s office declined to prosecute, given the age of the case and the small amount of marijuana involved (The Associated Press, nbcnews.com).  
Immigration authorities had requested that Lopez-Sanchez be kept in custody for 48 hours until they were able to retrieve him to start another deportation hearing immediately following the transfer to San Francisco. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department declined the request and Lopez-Sanchez was release on April 15th. In wake of the shooting death of Ms. Steinle, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has defended the decision to release Lopez-Sanchez and decline the request to turn him over to immigration officials, citing the city’s laws and regulations. Kathryn Steinle’s parents, Jim Steinle and Liz Sullivan were recently interviewed by Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and voiced their disappointment in the situation. Mr. Steinle said that they “feel that the federal, state and [city] laws are here to protect us. But we feel that this particular set of circumstances and the people involved” let them down. Mr. Steinle and Ms. Sullivan went on to say that they support a proposal that would give mandatory prison sentences to anyone who has been deported but was found to have returned to the United States illegally (The Associated Press, nbcnews.com). The immigration debate is sure to continue to rage on as we get closer to election season with pundits on all sides eager to weigh in on the topic. We would like to know your opinion on the situation; leave a comment on the issue on our social media pages: Facebook, Google+ or LinkedIn     Soures: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parents-woman-killed-pier-want-strict-immigration-law-n391531 http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/us/san-francisco-killing-sanctuary-cities/index.html

The National Advocates Expands Membership Options to Include Top 40 Under 40

As our organization continues to grow, we welcome all input and suggestions from our members and are constantly looking for ways to make the organization a continued success for many years to come. It is based on some of those membership suggestions that we are pleased to announce that The National Advocates will now include memberships for both Top 100 attorneys and the Top 40 Under 40 attorneys in each state or highly populated region. The National Advocates: Top 40 Under 40 is led by inaugural President Jim Mueller and Executive Committee members Thomas Dance, Spojmie Nasiri, Matthew Friedman, Ricky Palladino, T. Hunter Lewis, Jelena Kovacevic and Natalie Webb. If you know of any attorneys that are below the age of 40 and would be an excellent fit for The National Advocates: Top 40 Under 40 membership, please nominate them for membership by either emailing MembershipDirector@thenationaladvocates.org with the attorney’s name, state and firm website or submitting a Nomination Form here. We welcome your opinions and feedback. Please contact our Membership Director, Keri Skasick with any questions, comments, suggestions and nominations by email at kskasick@thenationaladvocates.org or call 888-491-3885.

Federal Court Sides with States Against Obama Administration in Immigration Reform Fight

In a decision that affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling regarding the Obama Administration’s expanded immigration reforms, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled that no immigration changes can be implemented involving President Obama’s November executive immigration order. The ruling stems from a federal lawsuit seeking to block the Administration’s reforms that would allow millions of immigrants in the country illegally deportation protection and the ability to obtain work permits. The original case, being heard in Brownsville, Texas by United States District Judge Andrew Hanen, was brought by 26 states against the Obama Administration. The states allege that the immigration executive order is unconstitutional and that each state would incur undue financial burdens in order to carry out the changes. Judge Hanen issued a hold on the immigration reforms and barred any of the Administration’s immigration expansions from being implemented until a resolution in the case is found. The Obama Administration, arguing that the states have no legal authority to sue the government over policies that involves the federal control of the country’s borders, sought a stay from Judge Hanen’s order in the 5th Circuit court in New Orleans. The stay was upheld in a 2-to-1 decision by the New Orleans federal court. In a statement regarding the order, White House spokesperson Brandi Hoffine spoke out against the decision, saying “today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government’s request for a stay” and defended President Obama’s executive order as “fully consistent with the law.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement as well praising the ruling as “a victory for those committed to preserving the law of rule in America” and criticized the “brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama Administration.” As the legal battle over immigration continues on each side, it is unclear if the decision will be made before President Obama leaves office in 2017. We would like to hear from you about your thoughts on the immigration battle. Let us know your opinion on the ruling, the lawsuit and each side’s stance on our social media pages: LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. Source: The Washington Post

No Summer Immigration Surge, Officials Say

No Summer Immigration Surge, Officials SayDaniel Ragsdale, deputy director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said authorities expect far fewer migrant children and families than the influx last year that gained worldwide attention and left Border Patrol agents unable to process so many …
Source: No Summer Immigration Surge, Officials Say « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth