The Federal Civil Rights Acts[1] provide the statutory basis for federal actions against federal, state, and/or local officials and all government actors.  The most frequently invoked statute is 42 United States Code Annotated Section 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.[2]

The Supreme Court in Monroe v. Pape[3] identified three main goals and/or objectives that was envisioned by the Congress for enacting the Federal Civil Rights Acts: 1) to make ineffective certain type of state laws; 2) to provide legal action or remedy where state law was found to be inadequate; and 3) to provide a federal action and remedy where the state process, although in existence, was not really available or practical.[4]          

            Now, in order to establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he or she has been deprived of a federal statutory or constitutional right by someone acting under the color of law.[5]  Acting under the color of law covers all those that have the power to act under a governmental authority such as police officers and governmental officials, including city, county, state, and federal actors.[6]  Furthermore, to act under color of law means to act outside the bounds of lawful authority or in contradiction with existing laws, but in such a manner that the acts were done while the governmental actor or official was professing or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties under the law.[7]  Simply put, the unlawful acts must consist of an exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority.[8] 

            Nevertheless, not every exploitation, infringement, abuse, or misuse of power or authority rises to the level of a civil rights claim; such misconduct may be characterized as either actual constitutional violations or negligence claims.  Of course, most alleged violations fall under a negligence claim rather than a Section 1983 action.  For example, police officers are routinely involved in dangerous procedures and with dangerous equipments.  Lack of due care in using police equipment or lack of due care in performing police procedures may give rise to liability under negligence theory; however, under Section 1983, such lack of care is not actionable for a civil rights violation.[9]  Nevertheless, most common causes of action for violations of constitutional rights are police misconducts such as:  1) excessive force and physical brutality; 2) illegal arrest; 3) illegal search and seizure; 4) abuse of process; 5) racial profiling; and 6) falsifying documents. 

             If you believe you have suffered a civil rights violation, the best place to start is to speak with an attorney.  Your attorney will evaluate all aspects of your case and explain all options available to you, in order to ensure the best possible outcome for your case. 

[2] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[3] Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961). 

[4] See Monroe, 365 U.S. at 172-83.

[5] See 42 USCA § 1983.

[6] See generally, Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d. 420 (1981).  Color of law is a legal term used in official misconduct cases.  It means that the law enforcement officer acted while abusing the authority given to him or her by reason of his or her employment as a public official.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] See generally, City of Los Angeles, v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). 

United States Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit today against the state of Arizona in Federal Court. The lawsuit came after the passage of SB 1070 in the Arizona State Legislature. In the lawsuit Department of Justice will argue that enforcing the immigration law is a Federal responsibility. The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to delay the enactment of SB 1070, arguing that the new law will cause “irreparable harm.”

Immigration experts are seeing this as an important step by the Federal Government to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the country. Although this action will not address the growing concerns of public about the immigration system, but it will demand a definition and protection of Federal Government’s constitutional authority of managing immigration.

We have seen mixed reaction on SB 1070 since its signing. Politicians in other states, including: Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Michigan, are appreciating the bill, and demanding something like this in their states as well. So, it is time to address the issue of immigration very seriously at the federal level, otherwise more states will follow the steps of Arizona, and will create problems for the federal government. This lawsuit or similar to this in future will not solve the problem. It is the duty of Obama administration and congress to address the issue of Immigration very seriously, otherwise more states will take steps like this in future.

Click here to see the actual Lawsuit against Arizona.

US Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder case, that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an aggravated felony. As a result of this verdict, Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for his reasoning to remain in the United States.

Individuals with two misdemeanor criminal convictions face a separate set of rules under the immigration court system. The US government had urged the Supreme Court for the adoption of a rule, which allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, making grounds for the mandatory deportation of a lawful permanent resident.

The Supreme Court found the idiocy in this approach, and mentioned in its decision, “It is quite unlikely that the ‘conduct’ that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo’s conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court.” Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo’s “petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an ‘aggravated felony.’”

Now, it is congress’s turn to follow the Supreme Court’s lead and restore immigration Judges’ discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.

Click here to read the detailed verdict of Supreme Court.

The US Immigration Service has issued a memorandum to its field offices clarifying the dates of admission which should be granted to L-1 intra-company transfers when they enter the United States.

The Immigration Service’s regulations do not specifically require a set date for each admission. Meaning that with H-1 employees, the regulations specifically state that the H-1 employee “shall” be given the admission date as stated on the underlying H-1 petition. The regulation clearly requires the admitting officer to grant the full time allowed on the petition, which in turn means the inspecting officer should not limit the time of admission to the employee’s visa from the US Consulate.

With the L-1 regulations, however, the case is different, as there is no such requirement. Therefore, over the years we have encountered situations where the L-1 employee is only granted admission up to the date of the expiration of the visa, which is most commonly not as long as the underlying petition. In the new memorandum, dated March 16, 2009, which was only released to the public last month, the Immigration Service has instructed all of its offices to grant the full admission up to the date as stated on the underlying L-1 petition and not limit the admission to the amount of time remaining on the visa.

If you have had difficulty with L-1 employees traveling to the US and receiving a limited amount of time for their date of admission (as stated on the I-94 card), this information should be useful for your employee and should be pointed out to the inspecting officer at the time of admission.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Thursday released a statement saying a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona would not work for Texas, even as one state representative prepares similar legislation for debate in January. “Some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien,” Perry continued on the statement. “Our focus must continue to be on the criminal elements involved with conducting criminal acts against Texans and their property. I will continue to work with the legislative leadership to develop strategies that are appropriate for Texas.”

Several city of Austin officials also responded Thursday to the bill, proposing a measure to remove or limit travel expenses and investment in Arizona.

Arizona’s passage of a controversial anti-immigration law has stirred national debate. Some people are calling for an economic boycott of the state. Companies have been pulling conferences out of Arizona resorts while others have suggested consumers shun companies, such as US Airways, that are based in the state and have yet to condemn the law. This is not the first time Arizona has passed such a law. In 1987 Arizona stopped recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day, various groups organized boycotts of the state. The NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from Phoenix for not recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Voters approved the holiday in 1992 and Tempe, Ariz., was awarded the 1996 Super Bowl.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association has already announced that it is moving its 300-to-400-person September convention, scheduled for Scottsdale, out of Arizona.

With the misguided immigration law passed in Arizona, major political struggles are over whether the U.S. Senate should tackle immigration reform before a climate bill. The Senate may not have the time for both this year – which major issue should take precedence?

Hispanics, the nation’s largest minority and a power base for President Obama and his Democratic Party, are outraged over Arizona’s law, which requires migrants to carry documentation with them at all times. Arizona’s GOP Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law Friday. Obama called the law “misguided.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who faces re-election this year, has indicated he might schedule immigration reform ahead of a climate bill, which is also one of Obama’s top priorities. The House passed a climate bill last year, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the Senate has yet to take up the issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has been working for months to craft a compromise bill with Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. If Reid does immigration first, Graham said Saturday he’ll pull his support for the climate bill.

With polls showing that Americans worrying less about the environment, including global warming, a climate change bill has been a difficult struggle to immigration reform.

An Arizona state bill that would give law enforcement greater authority over arresting illegal immigrants has caused national uproar and could set the stage for court battles over how far states can go when it comes to immigration policies. The bill would it make it a crime for immigrants to have no alien registration document, and undocumented citizens would be charged with “trespassing” simply for being in Arizona. The bill allows police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is “reasonable suspicion” about their immigration status. It would become illegal for people to employ illegal immigrants or to transport them anywhere in the state, even if they are family members.

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer has until Saturday night to veto the bill, sign it or do nothing and let it automatically become law. Proponents of the bill say they are confident Brewer will sign it, but the governor has been facing intense pressure to do the opposite.

As of Wednesday afternoon, a spokeswoman said, the governor’s office had tallied 1,356 people for the bill and 11,931 against it.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, signed the immigration enforcement bill into law. It takes effect in 90 days after the current legislative sessions in the next several weeks. Basically, the legislation makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegally. Other provisions of the bill allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

President Barack Obama called an Arizona immigration bill “misguided” Friday and said it could violate people’s civil rights, and he’s instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it’s legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”

Read our blog: If Your Skin Is Tan, You Might Be “Legally Profiled” – In Arizona.

Washington D.C. – The American Immigration Council applauds today’s Supreme Court decision on the right to counsel for non-citizens charged with committing a crime. The Court held that criminal defense lawyers must advise their non-citizen clients about the risk of deportation if they accept a guilty plea. The Court recognized that current immigration laws impose harsh and mandatory deportation consequences onto criminal convictions, and that Congress eliminated from these laws the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to cancel removal in meritorious cases. The case, Padilla v. Kentucky, involved a Vietnam War veteran who has resided lawfully in the U.S. for over 40 years. His criminal defense lawyer told him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime, but that advice was wrong. In fact, the guilty plea made Mr. Padilla subject to mandatory deportation from the United States.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE DECISION.