In the Wake of Zero Tolerance–Best Practices for Representing Separated Parents and Children Webinar
This Friday, July 13th, from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM, the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice will be holding a webinar for attorneys who would like to learn more and help separated parents and children.
The ABA Commission on Immigration, ProBAR, CRSJ and Children’s Immigration Law Academy (CILA) present this webinar for attorneys who wish to learn more about representing families separated by the Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy. Our experts will discuss how separated families have been processed at the border, forcibly separated, prosecuted and detained, causing grave suffering to parents and children and obstacles to their legal claims. Our experts will discuss each step in the process and explain the complicated legal proceedings that apply to parents caught at the border and children who have been rendered “unaccompanied” by government action. Lawyers across the country have expressed interest in helping these families. Many of these families remain divided today despite the President’s Executive Order that allegedly ended the practice but failed to include a procedure for reuniting families unless they agree to waive all claims and accept removal. This is not due process. Join us to learn more about how to effectively represent these families and permit those who fear persecution to apply for asylum as required by law.
Thank you to Sylvia Chin for sharing it with us.
For any questions, please email Civil Rights and Social Justice Section Associate Director Paula Shapiro at [email protected]
This year’s problem addresses the following issues:
I. Whether § 66.04 of the Apalsa Revised Statutes (“ARS”) precluding a public defender from withdrawing on the basis of excessive workload or lack of resource violates the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
A. Whether ARS § 66.04 is facially unconstitutional.
B. Whether ARS § 66.04 is unconstitutional as applied in this case.
II. Whether the sanctions imposed on Appellant by the Professional Ethics Board of the State Bar of Apalsa violated her rights under the Constitution of the United States.
A. Whether the sanctions imposed for refusing to comply with a court order to represent a criminal defendant violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process.
B. Whether the sanctions imposed for Appellant’s public statement regarding her refusal to comply with a court order to represent a criminal defendant violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.
Rio Guerrero: “If DOMA Falls, Immigration Will Rise”
AABANY congratulates Rio Guerrero, Co-Chair of the Immigration and Nationality Law Committee, for being published again in the Minority Trial Lawyer Newsletter, a publication of the ABA’s Litigation Section. In an article entitled “If DOMA Falls, Immigration Will Rise,” Rio explains how the Supreme Court’s resolution of the same-sex marriage debate may lead to increased immigration from same-sex couples. To read the full article, click on the link in the title.