On June 25, Abercrombie & Fitch settled an immigration discrimination charge by agreeing to pay over $158,000 and submit to two years of federal monitoring. The charge against the clothing retailer, which has several locations in California, was filed by a woman who claims that she was required to present a green card to prove that she was eligible for employment, although similar proof was not required by applicants who were U.S. citizens.
California immigrants may encounter challenges when seeking legal assistance in a variety of situations. Language and cultural barriers may make communication difficult, and if a case is handled incorrectly, an immigrant may have little realization of the fact that this has occurred. In some situations, a deportation could even occur because of a legal error. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that federal appeals courts have the ability to intervene in cases requiring review based on legal errors.
California residents may not be aware that if they are not married to a foreign national, they cannot use their domestic partnership status as a path to permanent residence for the person. This is true even if the domestic partnership is registered with the state.
California residents may not be aware that those born in some U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico are granted automatic U.S. citizenship, but individuals born in others like American Samoa are not. A group of American Samoans decided to challenge this state of affairs by filing a lawsuit, but a June 5 federal appeals court ruling preserved the current law. The three judges who heard the case concluded that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship automatically to those born in an unincorporated political territory of the United States.
California residents may be interested to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to reconsider an appeals court decision striking down an Arizona law that denied bail to illegal immigrants charged with serious felonies. The rejection, announced on June 1, means that the lower court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional stands.