During the political campaign for the 2024 general election, former United States President Donald Trump relied on immigration enforcement rhetoric to make himself attractive to his most ardent supporters. Some of his talking points about a “deportation task force” to remove millions of migrants were rehashed from his previous campaigns. Nonetheless, one particular point caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and immigration law firms that specialize in immigration services in San Diego.
Trump’s Proposal to Expand Immigration Checkpoints
Trump suggested packing the Supreme Court with conservative justices who would support his idea of enabling immigration checkpoints nationwide. What’s intriguing about this campaign promise is that there’s a Supreme Court decision on this issue, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), that limits immigration checkpoints to a reasonable distance from the nearest border. A standard distance of 100 miles was subsequently established by the U.S. Border Patrol.
The Purpose of Immigration Checkpoints
Immigration checkpoints are law enforcement operations the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorizes to:
- Deter illegal immigration and migrant smuggling
- Catch migrants who may have crossed the border illegally
- Seize contraband such as controlled substances
Legal Challenges to Immigration Checkpoints
Ignoring the Martinez-Fuerte decision
To the dismay of many Americans, DHS has been ignoring the Martinez-Fuerte decision for more than two decades by expanding immigration checkpoints and the actions of agents. Along with the Border Patrol, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been conducting checkpoints, sometimes with the support of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency that adopted a militarization posture during the Trump administration.
Key court rulings & their impact
A crucial aspect of the Martinez-Fuerte decision is centered on the actions of agents when they stop individuals at checkpoints. The stop should be initiated with the question “Are you an American citizen?” If the answer is no, further questioning should be limited to legal status, which may include requests to show identification documents such as passports, visas, and green cards. Any other questions or searches must be based on reasonable suspicion.
Unfortunately, remnants of the Trump administration’s chaotic management of DHS and its policies continue to tarnish immigration checkpoints. In 2022, a Supreme Court opinion related to the Martinez-Fuerte decision prevented the owner of a hotel near the border with Canada from seeking relief for injury and damages. The case, Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), involved a Border Patrol agent who barged into a hotel without a warrant. Legal analysts who evaluated the decision pointed out the deleterious effects of a Trump-packed Supreme Court on immigration policy.
Know Your Rights at Immigration Checkpoints
The Egbert v. Boule ruling shouldn’t discourage foreigners who have been aggrieved at checkpoints from discussing their options with an immigration law firm. You have the right to remain silent and decline to answer questions. If you’re detained, the agents cannot prevent you from contacting a lawyer. You can also refuse a search if you think the agents don’t have reasonable suspicion. Finally, if you’re profiled based on race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality at an immigration checkpoint, the detention should be invalidated.
If you have any questions about immigration, contact trustworthy immigration attorneys in San Diego, CA. The lawyers at KS Visa Law have vast experience with every aspect of immigration law, and they’re the attorneys to call on when you need the most up-to-date information about immigration regulations and how to navigate the immigration system. Call KS Visa Law today to schedule an appointment.
