A Latino civil rights group is suing a Nebraska city to stop its new ordinance that bars residents from hiring or renting homes to illegal immigrants.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court "to protect immigrants from unlawful, local regulation of immigration" and challenges to constitutional and federal authority.

Fremont city attorney Dean Skokan (skoh-KAN') says he couldn't comment because he hadn't yet seen the lawsuit.

The lawsuit targets the city's illegal-immigration ordinance that voters approved in June. The ban is set to go into effect on July 29.

The American Civil Liberties Union also has promised to challenge the ban in court, but had not filed a lawsuit by Wednesday morning.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson plans to host a meeting of U.S. and Mexican border governors in his state, a venue change in response to Mexican governors' objections to Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law.

Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Thursday the meeting will be held in Santa Fe in late September.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called off the meeting in Phoenix after the Mexican governors planned to boycott it because of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law.

The Mexican governors said in a June letter that Arizona's law violated civil rights and they suggested moving the conference to another state.

The agenda and other details of the meeting are still being worked out, but the governors of six Mexican states are expected to attend, Gallegos said.

Gallegos said Richardson was "working with other governors to craft a tight, but productive agenda that focuses on the most pressing issues in the border region."

Richardson's announcement of the border governors' meeting came as a federal judge in Phoenix considered a lawsuit against the Arizona law, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday over whether Arizona's new immigration should take effect on July 29.

It will mark the first major hearing in one of the seven challenges to the strict law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also will consider arguments over Gov. Jan Brewer's request to dismiss the challenge filed by Phoenix police Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa.

The judge said last week that she wasn't making any promises on whether she will rule on the officer's request to block enforcement of the law before it takes effect.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

The Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona over its tough law cracking on illegal immigration won’t deter state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, who says he is “full steam ahead” in sponsoring a Utah version of the Arizona law.

“I actually think the more states that pass legislation and get involved in the lawsuit, the better it’s going to be for defraying costs and fighting the federal government,” said Sandstrom, R-Orem.

Sandstrom said he also wants to join other legislators in filing a brief supporting the legality of the Arizona law and based on his discussions with Arizona lawmakers, he is confident the courts will uphold the state law.

“They’re pretty confident this whole thing is going to be in and out of court pretty quick and they’re going to be victorious,” he said.

Sandstrom is planning on introducing a Utah version of the Arizona law, which requires police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone stopped or detained for a suspected violation if the officer suspects the individual might be in the country illegally.

Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank says the lawsuit sends a very strong message that enforcement of illegal immigration is not something states should be handling.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives and will seek a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect, law enforcement sources said Tuesday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

But the filing is likely to have a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.

A federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. In addition to Obama and Holder, the measure has drawn words of condemnation from civil rights groups and has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have defended the law and urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

President Barack Obama's $600 million border security plan seems to have it all: More than 1,000 agents, seven gunrunner teams, five FBI task forces and more prosecutors and immigration judges.

But it doesn't include $40 million to help the already overwhelmed federal courts along the U.S.-Mexico border that will likely be inundated with additional drug and other criminal cases, a judiciary official tells The Associated Press.

Increased patrols will mean more arrests and more cases sent to the five district courts on the border, from California to Texas. The courts handle cases including drug trafficking, smuggling and illegal immigrants charged with other serious crimes.

"The current workload in our Southwest border courts is staggering," said James Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Duff said the judiciary asked Congress for the $40 million on June 22 after realizing it wasn't sent with Obama's plan. He said judiciary requests are usually included with the president's budget proposals, but wasn't in this case.

White House spokesman Luis Miranda said the request wasn't submitted with the president's because it's a separate branch of government.

Obama's plan does include more money for immigration judges, which operate in the executive branch. But those judges deal almost exclusively with civil deportation matters, not criminal cases, like the district courts.

The chief judge for the District of Arizona in Tucson, located in what's become the busiest corridor for illegal immigration and drug smuggling, said he fears that increased patrols will bring even more cases to his already swamped court.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

The nation's highest court agreed to decide whether the 2007 state law infringed on federal immigration powers and should be struck down.

The law at issue in the case is different from the strict new Arizona immigration law passed earlier this year and criticized by President Barack Obama that requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person suspected of being in the country illegally.

But the Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case, depending on how the justices rule, could end up affecting the pending legal challenges to the new law as well.

The Obama administration last month urged the Supreme Court to rule that the 2007 law was preempted by federal immigration rules and would disrupt the careful legal balance that the U.S. Congress struck nearly 25 years ago.

The Arizona law suspends or revokes licenses to do business in the state in order to penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It also requires employers to use an electronic verification system to check the work-authorization status of employees through federal records.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act was adopted after a federal immigration overhaul law died in Congress in 2007.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://breakinglegalnews.com/.

With the scrawl of a pen, GOP Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona awakened the dormant but explosive issue of illegal immigration, sending shock waves across the political spectrum in an election year when both parties had hoped to sidestep the topic.

Two months after Brewer signed a law instructing police to demand proof of a questionable person's legal status, voters have refocused on a topic that had faded into the background after Congress failed to overhaul the immigration system in 2007.

Protests have flared. Lawsuits have followed. Arizona boycotts are under way. More than 20 states are discussing similar efforts.

Polls again put border security and immigration among voters' top concerns.

"It's not just a problem in Arizona; it's a problem everywhere. People are just furious," Gary Widemann says of illegal immigration. "Something needs to be done."

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

"Caruchuri-Rosendo, and others in his position, may now seek cancellation of removal and thereby avoid the harsh consequence of mandatory removal," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. He noted that immigrants may still be deported in such instances, but said immigration judges have the discretion to allow people to remain in this country.

Carachuri-Rosendo, a Mexican native in his early 30s, had been in the United States since he was five. He was deported after two convictions in Texas in consecutive years. In 2004, Carachuri-Rosendo received 20 days in jail after pleading guilty to possessing less than two ounces of marijuana. The following year, he spent 10 days in jail after pleading no contest to possessing one tablet of the anti-anxiety drug Xanax without a prescription.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.