ACLU Sues DHS, et al., Over Cellphone Tracking of Immigrants

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri A recent source of controversy in the Trump Administration’s typically hardline approach to illegal immigration concerns the surveillance of social media by Homeland Security Investigations to track down immigrant activity, violations, and First-Amendment-protected expression disapproved of by authorities that lead to detention and deportation.[1] This has entailed searching and gathering information from electronic devices such as laptops, tablets, thumb drives, and cell phones.[2] Searching these devices and using tools to unlock encrypted information on these devices of those coming near the US border with

Obama-era DACA Program Reinstated by New York Federal Court Order in Vidal v. Wolf

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri In what counts as a severe blow to the Trump administration’s revamped immigration system in its final month, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order to reinstate the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) to its pre-Trump administration status.[1]   Before President Trump tried to end it in September of 2017, DACA served to permit young immigrants without legal status but had been brought over as children, to live and work legally in the U.S.[2] This was

Supreme Court Conditionally Recognizes the SEC’s Right to Disgorgement

  Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long argued that as part of penalties sought from parties accused of unlawful activities in violation of securities laws, the SEC had a right to disgorge from the profits of the liable party as part of the remedies it could seek.[1] Disgorgement refers to a remedy by which parties who profited from illegal or wrongful conduct (“ill-gotten gains” so to speak) must return those profits that they made from that conduct to those they harmed in order to make them whole.[2] There

Supreme Court Defines Standard of Education to Be Provided in Special Education IEP’s Under the IDEA of 1990

Supreme Court Defines Standard of Education to Be Provided in Special Education IEP’s Under the IDEA of 1990

  Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision on what advocate\s have described as “the most significant special-education issue to reach the high court in three decades.”[1] The Supreme Court finally set out the standard by which a free appropriate public education (FAPE) could be defined under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990. In a landmark ruling, Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, the Supreme Court ruled that in order “[t]o meet its substantial obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

Supreme Court Rules Unanimous for Child’s Right to Use Service Dog as Part of Special Education Accommodations under IDEA and Section 504

childs-right-to-use-service-dog

  Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools ruled that a claim involving the right of a disabled child to rely on a service animal in her elementary school did not involve education specifically and therefore did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA) before filing a private lawsuit.[1] This ruling was of special significance to those combatting discrimination in educational spaces outside of the confines of IDEA. Specifically, the Court made an important distinction between claims

The Supreme Court’s Confirmation of SEC’s Disgorgements in Liu v. SEC

  Written by Taher Kameli & Julie Seong A recent United States Supreme Court decision confirmed that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as an equitable remedy in SEC enforcement actions in federal court. Liu v. SEC was a case involving the SEC and married couple Charles Liu and Xing Wang, who was ordered to pay the $26.7 million they had collected from immigrants and misappropriated. On June 22, 2020, the Supreme Court’s Liu v. SEC ruling upheld the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to recover ill-gotten gains from those who commit financial and securities fraud.

DESPITE REQUESTS FROM TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, MANY STATE DEPARTMENTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAVE NOT TURNED OVER DRIVER’S LICENSE RECORDS TO CENSUS BUREAU

Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. It has often been said that the only governmental authority that has generally blocked the anti-immigration actions of the Trump administration has been the Federal judiciary.  In fact, there is another possible governmental authority that has in certain cases resisted the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration – the states. As an example of such state opposition to the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, despite requests from the Trump administration, many state Departments of Motor Vehicles have not turned over driver’s license records to the Census Bureau. In June,

SUPREME COURT GRANTS STAY OF INJUNCTION ALLOWING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S NEW ASYLUM RESTRICTIONS TO TAKE EFFECT

Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. While the Federal judiciary has generally been the principal obstacle to the anti-immigration efforts of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court has sometimes overruled lower Federal courts and upheld the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration.  For example, the Supreme Court has upheld the “Trump travel ban” and allowed the use of Department of Defense funds to build the United States-Mexico border wall. As another example of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Trump administration on an immigration issue, on September 11, the Supreme Court granted a stay of

SUPREME COURT APPROVES BROADENED GOVERNMENT POWER TO DETAIN CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS

Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. If you oppose President Trump’s immigration policies, did you vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election?  One effect of President Trump being elected is that he is able to appoint Supreme Court justices who share his harsh views on immigration.  This point was evidenced in the March 19 Supreme Court decision in the case of Nielsen v. Preap (Case No. 16-1363), which held that the government has a broad right to detain immigrants with past criminal records under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA of