The Immigration Non-Cooperative?

USA_passport_with_immigration_stamps_from_Austria,_Germany,_Singapore_and_the_US_-_20120708

By Ari Mead

Local governments across the country fought federal immigration policy under Obama. Under Trump the fight continues. Specifically, the President has directed federal immigration agencies to more aggressively enforce current immigration laws and prevent residents with legal documentation from entering the United States based on country of origin.

But, for the first time, states are adopting state-wide policies that attempt to prevent cooperation with federal immigration policies.

The following is an overview of what’s happening:

CALIFORNIA

Several members of California’s legislature have responded with two proposed bills, which aim to protect immigration status, national origin, and religious belief from getting into the hands of federal officials.

Current California law requires that when state or local law enforcement arrest someone they believe is not a citizen, they must report that individual to the federal government. SB 54 would repeal that provision. In addition, the bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies, along with other state agencies – including schools – from using any local resources for immigration enforcement purposes. Sb 54 also directs state agencies to adopt the confidentiality policies that the Attorney General defines.

Another proposed bill in California, SB 31, requires state agencies to secure databases containing names, places of birth, addresses and nation of origin. Additionally, the bill disallows California from creating any databases that compile personal information.

WASHINGTON

On February 23rd, Washington State beat California lawmakers to the punch, as Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee signed an executive order blocking state officials and agencies from cooperating with federal immigration raids, sharing private information in agency databases or creating any religious based databases. Although city level non-cooperation policies have existed for decades, these state-wide non-cooperation policies are the first of their kind.

FEDERALISM CHALLENGES

Meanwhile, city non-cooperation policies have been around and have been tested in court, shedding light on some of the legal issues they pose. City of New York v. United States, from the United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, concerned a provision in The Welfare Reform Act that prevented localities from prohibiting their local law enforcement and other agencies from sharing information with the federal government. The City of New York challenged the provision as violating the Tenth Amendment, and argued that the federal government could not interfere with how it instructed their local employees outside of a federal agency. Ultimately, the Tenth Amendment prevents congress from passing laws requiring states to administer civil immigration law. The Second Circuit decided that in the face of federal policy requesting cooperation, a city policy cannot prevent an official from voluntarily sharing immigration information. At the same time the ruling from the Second Circuit does not discuss whether a federal policy could require a state agency or city official to obtain information to report to the federal government.

Another case that considered the legal issues imbedded in non-cooperation policies was Sturgeon v Bratton. Sturgeon, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, involved an LAPD policy called S.O. 40, which stated that obtaining immigration information was not a matter for local authorities. A group of citizens challenged the policy as unconstitutional, arguing that that federal immigration law preempted the city policy. The Court of Appeals disagreed and said that the Tenth Amendment “shields state and local governments from the federal government requiring them to administer federal civil immigration law.”

In the months and years to come, more courts will likely have plenty of opportunities to decide whether state non-cooperation policies are also shielded by federalism. Whether states themselves are shielded by federalism depends on the federal government’s actions moving forward. The federal government could limit funds tied to immigration, or test the Tenth Amendment in this area again, challenging state laws that prevent local authorities from acting to enforce immigration laws.

Image Source

Man or Machine? EU Considering “Rights for Robots”

robotBy Grady Hepworth

Isaac Asimov’s 1942 short story “Runaround” is credited for creating the famous “Three Laws of Robotics.” Asimov’s Laws, although theoretically fictional (and most recently featured in the 2004 motion picture I, Robot), require robots to i) not hurt humans, to ii) obey humans, and to iii) only protect themselves when doing so wouldn’t conflict with the first two rules. However, the European Union (“EU”) made headlines this month when it took steps toward making Asimov’s Laws a reality.
Continue reading “Man or Machine? EU Considering “Rights for Robots””

Are My Emails Beyond the Grasp of the U.S. Government?

gavelBy Mackenzie Olson

Companies like Microsoft and Google store a lot of customer data in storage centers overseas. As of July 2016, 2nd Circuit precedent indicated that, due to the foreign location of those centers, the U.S. government could not compel these companies to turn over data, even by issue of a search warrant. The case that rendered this decisions was In the Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation. (But also take note of the dissent in the denial of en banc review). As the Southern District of New York adjudicated the Warrant case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was its final arbiter. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment only controlled as precedent in that jurisdiction. And though its opinion has been persuasive elsewhere, at least one judge, based in the Third Circuit, now disagrees with its outcome.

On February 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion and subsequent orders compelling Google to turn over certain data stored in overseas facilities, per the request of two previously issued search warrants.

In his opinion, Judge Rueter explains that, “the present dispute centers on the nature and reach of the warrants issued pursuant to section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 (“SCA”).

He frames the relevant issues as follows: “The court must determine whether the [g]overnment may compel Google to produce electronic records relating to user accounts pursuant to search warrants issued under section 2703 of the SCA, or in the alternative, whether Google has provided all records in its possession that the [g]overnment may lawfully compel Google to produce in accordance with the Second Circuit’s ruling.” Rueter ultimately holds that “compelling Google to disclose to the [g]overnment the data that is the subject of the warrants does not constitute an unlawful extraterritorial application of the [SCA].”

In its reporting of the decision, news outlet Reuters particularly emphasizes Judge Rueter’s reasoning that “transferring emails from a foreign server so FBI agents c[an] review them locally as part of a domestic fraud probe d[oes] not qualify as a seizure . . . because there [i]s “no meaningful interference” with the account holder’s “possessory interest” in the data sought . . . [the retrieval] has the potential for an invasion of privacy, [but] the actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States.”

Orin Kerr, law professor at The George Washington University School of Law, notes numerous problems with Judge Rueter’s decision. “The issue in this case is statutory, not constitutional. Even if you accept the (wrong) framing of the issue as being whether the SCA applies outside the United States, the answer has to come from what Congress focused on, not where the constitutional privacy interest may or may not be. Where you place the Fourth Amendment search or seizure strikes me as irrelevant to the extraterritorial focus of the statute.”

Kerr further contends that, “Even accepting the court’s framing, I don’t think it’s right that no seizure occurred abroad. As I see it, copying Fourth Amendment-protected files seizes them under the Fourth Amendment ‘when copying occurs without human observation and interrupts the stream of possession or transmission’. . . . That test is satisfied here when the information was copied. The court suggests that bringing a file back to the United States is not a seizure because Google moves data around all the time and ‘this interference is de minimis and temporary.’ I don’t think that works. Google is a private company not regulated by the Fourth Amendment, so whether it moves around data is irrelevant.”

It will come as no surprise that Google plans to appeal the Third Circuit decision. Likely a slough of other tech and media companies that previously filed amicus curie briefs in the Microsoft case will file briefs again, such as Apple, Amazon, AT&T, eBay, and Verizon.

Key questions that remain, then, are what will the Third Circuit decide on review?

Will the court follow the precedent set by the Second Circuit in Warrant?

Will it adopt the reasoning of the dissenters in the denial of Warrant‘s en banc review?

Will it follow Judge Rueter’s reasoning in the case at bar?

Or will it render an entirely novel opinion?

And though we can be sure that the losing party will petition the Supreme Court, one also must consider whether a final player emerge, in the form of Congress directly intervening? After all, the SCA was enacted in 1986, and many consider it not only out of date, but also relatively unworkable for modern technological issues. The time certainly seems ripe for a statutory update.

Image Source

 

Two Copywrongs Make A Copyright: Archiving Environmental Protection Agency Data Against the Trump Administration’s Demands

powerplantBy Gwen Wei

Five days after the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump, his administration officially instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to delete all references to climate change from the agency’s website.

The demand generated an instant outcry: from the media, members of the scientific community, and believers in global warming at large. Continue reading “Two Copywrongs Make A Copyright: Archiving Environmental Protection Agency Data Against the Trump Administration’s Demands”

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for Lee v. Tam

lee-v-tam-picBy Kiran Jassal

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments for Lee v. Tam to decide whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The disparagement provision resides in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act and states that a trademark which “[c]onsists of…matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute…” may not be registered.

In 2011, Simon Shiao Tam filed a trademark application for his band name, “The Slants.”

Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for Lee v. Tam”

Public Records in the Age of Trump

twitterBy Jeff Bess

It is  more than cliché to observe that the advent and evolution of the internet has deeply transformed modern society in many ways, both micro and macro. Indeed, not a clearer example exists than the role social media played in the 2016 presidential election. With over twenty million followers on Twitter and nearly 35,000 tweets, Donald Trump leaned into this direct line to the masses to set a new high water mark for social media ubiquity in pursuit of the White House.

Though derided by many as misguided or un-presidential, it is undeniable that Trump’s avid use of Twitter has been and continues to be effective. Indeed his prolific social media presence was a key source of the estimated $2 billion in earned media that greatly contributed to his success. And now that he is president, do his characteristic early morning, sometimes scattershot flurries of 140-character missives count as official government records? In other words, are they subject to federal document retention laws?

Continue reading “Public Records in the Age of Trump”

There is Also an App For That

 

judge-aiken
The Honorable Judge Ann Aiken

By Jessy Nations

At the risk of sounding older than my years, it seems we are now demanding an app for everything these days. Even when we don’t need or want an app for something, one inevitably appears. That is, except, for legal apps, which are notably absent from the app store. Sure, I can download a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary, and Google is more than happy to direct me to lawyers in my area, but last I checked the smartphone revolution hadn’t done much for the criminal justice system … for now.

However, in an effort to modernize the reentry process for former inmates, a group of developers, lawyers, and judges are working on a reentry app . The idea is to turn the justice system from Big Brother into little brother. Continue reading “There is Also an App For That”

Mitsubishi Regional Jet Runs into Regulatory Turbulence in the American Skies

ja21mj_2016-09-27_img_4836By Mariko Kageyama

Say you are a maker of a brand new aircraft. You show off its blueprint and miniature model and take orders before you have even constructed it. What legal risks are you willing to assume at this stage? Though this may seem a quintessential contract question, a real case involving Mitsubishi provides us an interesting twist.

On September 28 and November 18, 2016, the first two Mitsubishi Regional Jet MRJ90 test aircraft made successful ferry flights from Nagoya, Japan to Moses Lake, Washington. Built by Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation, the MRJ90 is the first all-new commercial airplane manufactured in Japan in the last half a century. A fleet of MRJ90 test aircraft will be undergoing test flights in partnership with a local engineering firm, AeroTEC, which is based at the Grant County International Airport in Moses Lake. A team of over 200 aerospace engineers in Moses Lake, Seattle, and Nagoya is aiming to make the MRJ90’s formal certification process as smooth as possible to allow entry its into service in 2018.

Continue reading “Mitsubishi Regional Jet Runs into Regulatory Turbulence in the American Skies”

DMCA Takedown Notices: Never Enough, Always Too Much

picture1By Ari Robbins

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notices are headed to the Supreme Court where they could themselves be facing a takedown. These notices are issued outside of a court process and are supposed to warn online hosts that content on their websites might constitute copyright infringement. Per the Ninth Circuit decision that is headed to the Court, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., the sender of a takedown notice must have a subjective belief that material related to a notice is not fair use. Imposing such a standard has far reaching implications for all senders  and recipients of DMCA takedown notices.

Continue reading “DMCA Takedown Notices: Never Enough, Always Too Much”

China, Cisco, and What Happens When the Technology We Love is Used for Hate Overseas

By Seth Parentfact-picture

In Doe v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems is under fire for a recent development in its ongoing business relationship with the Chinese government. The plaintiffs in Doe allege that Cisco knowingly aided and abetted the Chinese government by developing a system custom-tailored to identify, track, and persecute members of a minority group known as the Falun Gong.

The complaint was initially dismissed for lack of protection under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), though it is now on appeal. The ATS grants federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of certain international laws regardless of where the harm occurred or who inflicted that harm.

Continue reading “China, Cisco, and What Happens When the Technology We Love is Used for Hate Overseas”