Law Blog

Law BlogLegal Blog on immigration, bankruptcy, family law (divorce, annulment and legal separation), personal injury, real estate, wills and estate matters.enThu, 30 Apr 2026 00:56:14 -04002188Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationTrump's Muslim Ban Version 2.0After a bit of uncertainty regarding the prognosis of President Donald J. Trump’s second take at a proposed travel ban on six majority Muslim countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia—a federal judge from the State of Hawaii has issued an immediate injunction yesterday evening mere...Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0400After a bit of uncertainty regarding the prognosis of President Donald J. Trump’s second take at a proposed travel ban on six majority Muslim countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia—a federal judge from the State of Hawaii has issued <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-revised-travel-ban-judge-hearing-236086" target="_blank">an immediate injunction yesterday evening</a> mere hours before President Trump’s executive order was to go into effect. The proposed travel ban was a revised version of an executive order President Trump had issued earlier in the year, shortly after being sworn into the Oval Office. The initial executive action had been in effect for only a short while before a federal judge in Seattle ruled against it and brought the ban to an end. The judge took issues with provisions in the executive order that, in essence, imposed a veiled <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html?_r=1" target="_blank">“religious test for travelers”</a> and migrants coming to the United States. Amongst the questionable provisions was one that allowed for Christian travelers from the original seven majority Muslim countries to enter and exit the United States freely, thus explicitly discriminating only against travelers practicing the Islamic faith. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Seattle judge’s ruling, President Trump removed language suggesting preferential treatment for Christian travelers, allowed for green card and visa holders from the listed nations to enter and exit the US, removed Iraq from the original list of countries, and then reissued the travel ban to take into effect midnight last night, March 16, 2017. However, much to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/mar/16/trump-travel-ban-blocked-nationwide-hawaii-court-live" target="_blank">President Trump’s expressed fury</a>, the judiciary has once again blocked it, essentially listing the same concerns cited in the previous injunction. Even before Federal <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/derrick-watson-5-things-to-know/" target="_blank">Judge Derrick K. Watson</a> of Hawaii issued his ruling, attorneys general from the states of Maryland, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts had expressed intent to sue on grounds that it unfairly discriminated against Muslims and was an unprecedented overreach of executive power. Judge Watson particularly cited the case of the plaintiff that had filed the case in conjunction with the state of Hawaii as an example of how the ban would bring “concrete injuries” to Muslim nationals and “their immediate families.” The plaintiff, Doctor Ismail Elshikh, was a Muslim American citizen for ten years, emigrating from Egypt, and was married to a woman from Syria. Thus, the ban directly impacted the ability for him and his family to visit each other freely. In his <a href="http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-d421-db68-a97b-d5e934210000" target="_blank">written decision</a>, Judge Watson also cited prejudicial statements that President Trump had made against Muslims while campaigning as "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor." While this may bring an immediate sigh of relief for Muslim travelers from the nations listed in the ban, President Trump has doubled down in his support of his executive order. In a scathing rebuke of the judiciary, President Trump has expressed considerable frustration with his inability to enact (what he calls) a “watered down” version of his original ban, and has accused the judicial branch of <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-hawaii-judges-ruling-revised-travel-ban/story?id=46142441" target="_blank">acting beyond the scope of its constitutional powers</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-hawaii-judges-ruling-revised-travel-ban/story?id=46142441" target="_blank">.</a> The White House’s argument in favor of the ban states national security issues, stating that intel received from the previous administration was the basis for the executive order. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear,” lamented President Trump in response to last night’s ruling, firmly vowing to bring the issue to the Supreme Court if necessary. I predict that this case will eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court, either by first going to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and be decided in favor of the lower court or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and be then decided 4/4. Such a decision would uphold the lower court’s decision, which means that the executive order would not be allowed to go into effect.2190Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawBankruptcySupreme Court Broadens What is Considered as Bankruptcy FraudOn Monday, May 16th, 2016, I had the honor of being present in the United States Supreme Court to be sworn in as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. While I was there, I had the unique opportunity of observing the courts deliver its decisions, including that of the case Husky International...Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 -0400On Monday, May 16th, 2016, I had the honor of being present in the United States Supreme Court to be sworn in as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. While I was there, I had the unique opportunity of observing the courts deliver its decisions, including that of the case Husky International Electronics V. Ritz. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Husky International Electronics 7 to 1. I was fortunate enough to be able to listen to Justice Elena Kagan speak for the majority and read through the decision. The case was an important one for bankruptcy attorneys such as myself, as it redefined what debts can and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. More specifically, the case determined what the term “actual fraud” in the Federal Bankruptcy Code meant and what it encompassed. At issue in the case was whether or not the actions of Daniel Ritz—an individual who had ran up a nearly $164,000 debt to Husky International prior to filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy—constituted as “actual fraud” as defined under Section <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title11/USCODE-2011-title11-chap5-subchapII-sec523" target="_blank">523(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code</a>. The Federal Bankruptcy Code prohibits the discharge of<a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title11/USCODE-2011-title11-chap5-subchapII-sec523" target="_blank"> “any debt . . . obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” </a>Ritz had not made any false pretenses or false representations when taking on the debt, but rather, engaged in a fraudulent transfer of money from one business entity to another. Ritz took on debt from Husky under one corporate entity (Chrysalis Manufacturing), then transferred a majority of the funds from Chrysalis to a separate business in order to make it appear as if Chrysalis had minimal assets and thus was eligible for bankruptcy. The courts were asked to decide whether this conveyance of funds that occurred after the debt was established constitutes as “actual fraud.” If so, then the debts owed to Husky International would not be dischargeable under bankruptcy. The courts had previously ruled in favor of Ritz and had determined that the debts owed to Husky International were eligible for discharge since Ritz had neither made any false representations nor was there any false pretenses prior to the debt having been incurred. The lower courts held that a transfer of funds cannot be deemed as “actual fraud”—regardless of whether or not the transfer had been allegedly done to avoid paying debts owed. The lower courts interpreted “actual fraud” as being defined strictly by the phrases before it, that is, fraud conducted via “false pretenses” and “false representation.” The Supreme Court reversed this ruling. In the summary of arguments, Justice Kagan explained that Congress had specifically amended the law to include the term “actual fraud” at the end. If they only meant fraud through misrepresentation and false pretenses, then they would not have gone through the efforts of amending it. Justice Kagan also used historical precedent and common law to further bolster the Court’s argument in favor of Husky. Dating back to 1571, all the way to medieval England, the term “actual fraud” included <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-145_nkp1.pdf" target="_blank">“transfer schemes designed to hinder the collection of debt”.</a> The Court thus deemed that Ritz was indeed responsible for the debt owed to Husky and reversed the rulings of the lower courts. With this Supreme Court Ruling, it is likely that bankruptcy courts will apply greater scrutiny to cases before them and be more likely to state that fraud has taken place even without a “smoking gun”.2192Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationSupreme Court Deadlocked on DAPA Resulting in No Relief for MillionsA Supreme Court ruling this past Thursday resulted in a rare 4-4 tie—a deadlock in a case that would have decided the status of over five million undocumented immigrants who are parents of citizens and/or lawful residents of the United States. The case, United States v. Texas, reviewed President...Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0400A Supreme Court ruling this past Thursday resulted in a rare 4-4 tie—a deadlock in a case that would have decided the status of over <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html?_r=0">five million undocumented immigrants</a> who are parents of citizens and/or lawful residents of the United States. The case, United States v. Texas, reviewed President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order known as DAPA—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. The Executive Order was an ambitious immigration plan that allowed for undocumented immigrants with children that were lawful citizens or residents of the United States to be able to legally live in the United States and apply for and receive work permits. The work permits would last three years and be renewable. The plan did not, however, grant citizenship or full legal status. It only allowed granted temporary work permits. The Executive Order also protected the parents from deportation and allowed them to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8025691/immigration-lawsuit-obama">apply for driver’s licenses and State ID cards.</a> President Obama initially gave the Executive Order <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html?_r=0">“after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress”</a> that refused to support the Senate’s bipartisan immigration plan. The President took unilateral action to circumvent partisan gridlock in a set of Executive Orders—<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html">citing precedent of past presidents</a> taking similar actions concerning immigration as a defense for his own. Immediately afterwards, Texas and 26 other states filed suit against the plan and challenged it on grounds that it was an overreach of presidential power and that it <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8025691/immigration-lawsuit-obama">brought financial harm to the States</a>. DAPA suffered early setbacks as lower courts sided with the State’s and blocked President Obama’s plan from being implemented. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against President Obama’s plan, the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a clear decision either way. Instead, as a result of the Supreme Court lacking a decisive 9th member following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court made no ruling and voted in a 4-4 tie. When a tie occurs in the United States Supreme Court, the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/11/what_happens_in_ascotus_tie.html">decision of the lower court remains in effect.</a> While President Obama can petition to have the court rehear the case, it is unlikely that the court will agree. The decision leaves the lives of millions of undocumented immigrants and their families in limbo. While it does not mean that the parents will necessarily nor immediately face deportation, it does mean that they still face the threat of deportation. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans immigration plan would have helped ease undocumented immigrants into American society and would have prevented hardworking parents from being separated from their children. It appears that there is no immediate relief for the people suffering from an outdated immigration policy. President Obama’s plan was meant to help but was unfortunately unable to overcome high partisan gridlock. The courts blocked the President’s well intentioned efforts, denying relief to millions of undocumented immigrants and Congress has routinely refused to address the issue of immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform will instead require congressional action. Judging by the continuous congressional gridlock, this, sadly, seems unlikely as well.2194Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationU.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument on DAPAOn April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter of Texas v. United States. This is the legal action in which Texas and 25 other states joined to challenge President Obama’s executive order known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). DAPA would stop the...Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 -0400On April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas">Texas v. United States.</a> This is the legal action in which Texas and 25 other states joined to challenge President Obama’s executive order known as <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction">DAPA</a> (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). DAPA would stop the deportation of people in the U.S. without legal authorization and who arrived here prior to 2010, have no criminal convictions, and are parents of children who are either American citizens or permanent residents. Although DAPA would not confer legal status to the people who meet these requirements, it would allow them to live and work legally in the U.S. This would allow them to “come out of the shadows” and to become productive tax paying members of society. Texas and its companion states argued that they have a right to challenge DAPA, because DAPA would cost the states money, since, for example, Texas subsidizes the cost of issuing drivers’ licenses. They also argued that <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/02/19/the_conservative_case_for_daca_the_intriguing_legal_theory_you_wont_hear_on_fox_news/">the President exceeded his executive authority</a> with DAPA, because the large number of people that would be protected represents a substantial change in the law. The states also complained that the President issued the order without giving them notice and an opportunity to make comments. Further, they argued that the President is obliged to carry out laws and lacks the power to change them; only Congress may change laws. The Obama Administration argued that it is within the <a href="http://www.epi.org/blog/presidents-legal-authority-expand-deferred/">President’s authority to prioritize</a> who should be deported from the U.S. President Obama argued that the millions of people who meet the DAPA criteria are not threats to the security of the U.S. and that resources should be spent on deporting only those who pose a threat, such as those with a criminal background. President Obama pointed out that he is not the first president to choose who to deport and not to deport. In fact, some critics of President Obama have pointed out that the Obama Administration has <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/">deported more people</a> than any other administration. Texas and the other states challenged the Obama Administration in the federal district court in Texas and was granted a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan">restraining order</a> against implementing DAPA. The Obama Administration appealed the restraining order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it requested that the restraining order be lifted. The Fifth Circuit Court refused to remove the restraining order. The Obama Administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on DAPA. The Supreme Court is expected to decide this case by the end of its current term, which is on June 30th. The Court is currently down to eight members from its usual nine due to the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Many experienced observers of the Court are of the opinion that the Justices are evenly divided on the issues presented by this case based in part on their comments during the oral argument. If the Court decides this matter with four in favor and four against, the decision of the lower court will remain in effect. This will result in the federal district court decision against DAPA being the final word on this matter. If the Court decides in favor of the Obama Administration, the Court will likely remand the case back to the district court with instructions to vacate its restraining order, which will allow DAPA to proceed. However, the next president may decide to abandon DAPA, since DAPA is an executive order. This would be likely if a Republican wins in November. However, if a Democrat wins, it is likely that DAPA would remain in effect.2197Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationSupreme Court to Decide on DAPAIn November of 2014, after Congress refused to pass any immigration reform, President Obama issued an executive order to help those that didn’t have legal status in the United States and had children that were born in the U.S. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or...Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0500In November of 2014, after Congress refused to pass any immigration reform, President Obama issued an <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/53/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-2014-Immigration-Executive-Order.aspx" target="_blank">executive order</a> to help those that didn’t have legal status in the United States and had children that were born in the U.S. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA. To qualify for <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/#order" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, the applicant needed to pass a criminal background test, be in the United States for at least the past 5 consecutive years, and pay taxes. If the applicant was approved under <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, he or she would be allowed to work and would not be subject to deportation. DAPA would not provide a green card or citizenship. President Obama said that, under <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wejt939QXko" target="_blank">DAPA</a>, he was merely using his constitutional discretion to decide who should be deported. He said that the government could not possibly deport all of the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally and wanted to focus on deporting criminals instead of breaking up law abiding families, though here without legal status are not posing a threat to the public. Texas and 25 other states joined in a legal action, entitled Texas v. United States, in which they challenged DAPA’s validity. The lower court judge decided in favor of the challengers to the law and issued a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan" target="_blank">restraining order</a> to keep DAPA from going into effect pending the Obama Administration’s appeal. The Obama Administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked that the restraining order be lifted while the appeal was pending. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398741/federal-judge-blocks-implementation-obamas-executive-amnesty-now-patrick-brennan" target="_blank">The Fifth Circuit refused</a> to remove the restraining order. The Obama Administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 19, <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/court-will-review-obama-administrations-immigration-policy-in-plain-english/" target="_blank">the Supreme Court</a> agreed to hear the matter this term, which will end in June. The Supreme Court will consider <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/" target="_blank">four issues</a>: 1) Do Texas and the other 25 states have the legal authority, called standing, to challenge DAPA? To have standing, the parties bringing the action need to show that they would be harmed by DAPA. 2) Does President Obama have the legal right to use his discretion to decide who is to be deported? 3) Does the Department of Homeland Security need to notify the public about DAPA and give the public the opportunity to make comments before DAPA is implemented? 4) Does DAPA violate the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It appears that this matter will be argued in April and decided at the end of June. Consequently, if DAPA is upheld, the Obama Administration will have little time to implement it. Since DAPA is an executive order, even if the Supreme Court upholds DAPA, the next president, who will take office on January 20, 2017, can immediately cancel it in whole or in part. Almost certainly Congress will take no action on immigration reform in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the only hope for the millions who would be helped by DAPA is that the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Obama Administration and that a Democrat is elected president in November.2199Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawFamily LawOutlaw Rabbis Using Torture to Get Get Get ArrestedRabbi Martin Wolmark, 57, an orthodox rabbi from Monsey, New York has been sentenced to more than three years in prison for his part in a ring that used coercion and torture in order to get Jewish men to agree to a religions divorce. The ring, which included Rabbi Mendel Espstein of Brooklyn were...Tue, 15 Dec 2015 00:00:00 -0500<a href="http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2015/12/14/martin-wolmark-monsey-rabbi/77321860/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=" target="_blank">Rabbi Martin Wolmark</a>, 57, an orthodox rabbi from Monsey, New York has been sentenced to more than three years in prison for his part in a ring that used coercion and torture in order to get Jewish men to agree to a religions divorce. The ring, which included <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/bklyn-rabbi-charged-100-000-torture-husbands-divorce-feds-article-1.1481722" target="_blank">Rabbi Mendel Espstein</a> of Brooklyn were active from 2009 to 2013 and involved payment of large sums of money for their services. The tools used included handcuffs and electric cattle prods. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rabbi-10-years-beating-jewish-men-resisting-divorce-article-1.2466800" target="_blank">Rabbi Mendel Epstein</a>, who is 70, was sentenced for 10 years in prison. As discussed a <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/43/Man-Refuses-to-Give-His-Wife-Religious-Divorce-Marries-Another.aspx" target="_blank">previous article</a>, under Jewish law the man must cooperate in order for a Jewish divorce, which is known as a get to be given. If he man refuses to cooperate there can be no get and accordingly, the woman may never remarry in the Jewish religion. This is a real problem to a woman that is orthodox. There are organization such as the <a href="http://www.getora.org/" target="_blank">Organization for the Resolution of Agunot</a> to help such woman. Traditionally Rabbis would discuss the matter of a get with the man and try to convince him of cooperating in the get. If the man could not be persuaded to do the right thing, then public shaming of a man could also be a possibility. However Rabbi Wolmark and his associates went well over the legal line by holding the men against their wills and<a href="http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2015/12/14/martin-wolmark-monsey-rabbi/77321860/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=" target="_blank"> torturing </a>them. The ring of outlaw Rabbis were<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/19/3-new-york-men-sentenced-for-divorce-coercion/" target="_blank"> discovered </a>when an undercover FBI woman approached Rabbi Wolmark seeking a get. With the undercover woman FBI agent was an uncover FBI male agent posing as her brother. Rabbi Womark and the convicted Rabbi Mendel Epstein openly discuss their plans to kidnap and torture the husband in order to obtain his permission for the get. Most of the Rabbis arrested were arrested at the warehouse they were planning on holding and torturing the man. They had with them in their possession several items, including handcuffs and electric cattle prods. Although this is a colorful story, it is a symptom of a real problem, that is that the man controls the process of obtain a religious Jewish divorce. New York has tried to deal with this problem by passing a <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/13/253" target="_blank">law</a> which requires every couple when divorcing sign an affidavit stating that if they married religiously that they would cooperate in a religious divorce. Of course this only helps if the man wants a civil divorce and the divorce takes place in New York.2200Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationDAPA Still on HoldPresident Obama’s executive order from November 2014 has just received another legal setback. A three judge panel from the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. United States voted 2 to 1 against the Obama Administration. This allows the injunction of a Texas district court, which prevents the executive...Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:00:00 -0500President Obama’s <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/53/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-2014-Immigration-Executive-Order.aspx" target="_blank">executive order</a> from November 2014 has just received another legal setback. A<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf" target="_blank"> three judge panel </a>from the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. United States voted 2 to 1 against the Obama Administration. This allows the injunction of a Texas <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html" target="_blank">district court,</a> which prevents the executive order going into effect remain in place. As you may remember, President Obama’s executive order, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/19/your-complete-guide-to-obamas-immigration-order/#order" target="_blank">(DAPA</a>), had stated that the administration would use it’s discretion in not deporting certain individuals. By qualifying for DAPA deportation would be merely deferred; no permanent legal status would be granted. In order to qualify for<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans" target="_blank"> DAPA </a>a person would need to meet the following requirements: Must have been in the U.S. for at least 5 years; must have at least 1 child who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal resident; must register for the program; pass a criminal background test; and pay taxes. Those who would qualify would be eligible to work. In <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-confident-power-legal-arguments-defending-dapa" target="_blank">defending DAPA</a>, the Obama Administration said that it was using its legal authority under the law to decide on who to deport. They said that the government should concentrate on deporting dangerous individuals and not those raising children who have legal status and aren’t a danger to society. The administration wanted to make such individuals tax paying members of society. The<a href="http://www.cato.org/blog/good-policy-bad-law-obama-correctly-rejected-again-immigration-reform" target="_blank"> position of Texas </a>and the other 25 states that joined it in Texas v. United States was that if this executive order was carried out that it would cost those states additional money and that the Obama Administration had exceeded its legal authority in DAPA. Since many of the judges in the Fifth Circuit were<a href="http://www.afj.org/reports/the-judges-for-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit" target="_blank"> appointed by Republicans </a>the decision of the Fifth Circuit to decide in favor of Texas has widely been expected. The Obama administration has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-seeks-supreme-court-involvement-in-immigration-case/2015/11/10/ce13d802-87bb-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html" target="_blank">announced</a> that it plans on asking the Supreme Court to take this matter up for consideration and decision. There is not much time to get this before the Supreme Court so that it can be decided during the current term. Even if the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/" target="_blank">Supreme Court </a>does accept this case and decides in favor of the President it would allow only several months for the executive order to be carried out. If the Supreme Court refuses to accept the case the preliminary injunction would stand and the matter will be then decided in by the full Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No matter how this matter is decided, due to the delays imposed by the injunction, President’ Obama’s DAPA program will have limited effect on the millions that it was meant to benefit. When the new president is sworn in on January 20, 2017, since DAPA is only an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order" target="_blank">executive order,</a> that president would be under no legal obligation to continue DAPA, even if the courts decide in favor of President Obama.2202Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawFamily LawMarriage Equality is Now the Law Throughout the United StatesThanks to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2015, in the matter of Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex couples now have the right to marry throughout the United States. Further, every state must also recognize the same sex marriages performed in other states. The right for same sex couples to...Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:00:00 -0400Thanks to the<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0" target="_blank"> U.S. Supreme Court </a>ruling on June 26, 2015, in the matter of <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf" target="_blank">Obergefell v. Hodges</a><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf" target="_self">,</a> same sex couples now have the right to marry throughout the United States. Further, every state must also recognize the same sex marriages performed in other states. The right for same sex couples to marry has come about in a relatively short period of time. Less than 20 years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/how-and-why-doma-became-law-1996" target="_blank">Defense of Marriage Act</a>(DOMA). <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:" target="_blank">DOMA</a> defined marriage as a marriage between a man and woman. Further, DOMA stated that, for federal rights and benefits, such as filing income taxes and sponsoring a spouse, recognition would not be given to same sex couples that married. In addition to DOMA, many states outlawed same sex marriage either by statute or by a voter referendum. <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/" target="_blank">Public sentiment regarding same sex marriage has also substantially changed </a>over a relatively short period of time. Just 14 years ago, only 35% of the population approved of marriage between same sex partners. Now, 57% of the population approve of marriage equality. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/24/What-the-Supreme-Court-Ruling-on-DOMA-Means-for-Same-Sex-Couples.aspx" target="_blank">the </a><a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/24/What-the-Supreme-Court-Ruling-on-DOMA-Means-for-Same-Sex-Couples.aspx" target="_blank">Winsor</a> case that the section in DOMA that stated that federal recognition would not be given to a couple legally married in a state that allowed same sex marriage was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court did not go as far as to say that same sex marriage should be legal in all states. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to <a href="http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage" target="_blank">legalize same sex marriage</a>. After that, a trickle of states followed suit. In recent years, the trickle became a torrent of states to legalize same sex marriage. This trend was substantially enhanced when district federal courts began ruling in favor of marriage equality for all. Then the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against same sex marriage, which caused a conflict between federal circuit courts and which was resolved by the Supreme Court in the Obergefell case. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-jim-obergefell-became-the-face-of-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-case/2015/04/06/3740433c-d958-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html" target="_blank">James Obergefell and John Arthur</a> lived together for many years in a committed relationship. When John’s state of health became poor due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), they decided to fly from their home state of Ohio, which did not allow same sex marriage, to Maryland, which did. They flew in a medical transport plane and married while in the plane on the tarmac in Maryland. Although James and John were married in a state that allowed same sex couples to marry, when John died four months later, Ohio refused to recognize their marriage as legal. Accordingly, Ohio refused to list James as the spouse on John’s death certificate. James sued to have his marriage recognized and lost in the federal district court. The Obergefell case was consolidated with thirteen other cases, in which same sex couples had sued to gain marital rights and lost in the federal district court.In deciding that same sex couples had the same rights to marry as opposite sex couples,<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/26/the-one-supreme-court-paragraph-on-love-that-gay-marriage-supporters-will-never-forget/" target="_blank"> Justice Kenney closed by so eloquently stated</a> the following: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. It is so ordered.”2240Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawImmigrationMarried Same-Sex Marriage Couples and Immigration UpdateThis past June, the Supreme Court ruled The Defense of Marriage Act, the law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. Previously, even with New York and fourteen other states passing laws allowing gay marriage, DOMA had barred the federal government...Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500This past June, the Supreme Court ruled The Defense of Marriage Act, the law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. Previously, even with New York and fourteen other states passing laws allowing gay marriage, DOMA had barred the federal government from granting permanent residency or citizenship or visas to same sex couples based on their relationship. The Supreme Court decision to overturn DOMA has impacted close to <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/immigration/">one million LGBT immigrations, according to a recent study released by the Williams Institute</a>. Of these immigrants, close to 2/3rds are undocumented and were unable to apply for legal status due to DOMA. Since the Supreme Court decision in June of this year, many same-sex couples and their families have had their immigration case reviewed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (<a href="http://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/implementation-supreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act">USCIS</a>). Several of these families have been granted legal status and are able to enjoy the same rights as opposite sex couples. In New York, one man, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/vondiaz/out-of-the-dark-one-gay-latino-couples-battle-through-th">Pablo Garcia</a>, had been living for two decades as an undocumented immigrant. After the ruling, his US citizen and same-sex spouse applied for citizenship on his behalf and he was granted legal status. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/gay-queens-playwright-green-card-long-battle-article-1.1527149">Another man</a> had previously been tied to one employer as the only visa he could attain was a work visa. After getting married to a same-sex US citizen, his spouse successfully applied for legal status and they are both enjoying legal status as a family. In addition to the <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/25/Same-Sex-Couples-Now-Have-the-Right-to-Sponsor-a-Spouse.aspx">immigration benefits that we’ve outlined before</a>, same-sex couples can also apply for “Cancellation of Removal” for their same-sex spouse. The applying spouse must be a US Citizen or a legal resident and must prove that deportation of their same-sex spouse would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if his or her spouse is deported. Prior to the ruling, only opposite-sex couples could apply. Now, both same and opposite-sex marriages have the right to file for Cancellation of Removal in order to obtain legal residency for their spouse. Furthermore, same-sex couples can also apply for legal status of their relatives or step-relatives under family visas. Prior to the ruling, children of same-sex couples were not considered for immigration benefits under family visas. The ruling has since made it possible for all family members of same-sex couples to apply for lawful US residency. Since previous efforts at immigration reform were hampered by <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/what-the-doma-decision-means-for-immigration-reform.html">the issue of gay marriage,</a> the ruling has likely made future immigration reform easier to pass. The debate over whether or not to grant same-sex couples the same legal immigration benefits as opposite sex couples has been put to an end and congress can now focus on comprehensive immigration reform. If you are interested in sponsoring your same or opposite sex spouse, call us at (855) 625-0800 and schedule a free consultation.2205Jeffrey B. PeltzArea of LawBankruptcyRent Stabilized Apartments are Now Protected under NY Law When Filing BankruptcyFor the last several years, those considering filing bankruptcy in New York who lived in either a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment had to consider the possibility of losing their home if they filed bankruptcy. It seemed crazy that some of the most vulnerable among us risked becoming...Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:00:00 -0500For the last several years, those considering filing bankruptcy in New York who lived in either a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment had to consider the possibility of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/nyregion/rent-stabilized-lease-cant-be-seized-in-bankruptcy-new-york-state-court-rules.html" target="_blank">losing </a>their home if they filed bankruptcy. It seemed crazy that some of the most vulnerable among us risked becoming homeless by seeking the protection and benefits allowed under the bankruptcy laws; however, this was the law until a few days ago. <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2014/180.html" target="_blank">In the matter of Marry Veronica Santiago-Monteverde v. John S. Pereira</a> before the New York Court of Appeals, the question considered was “May a bankruptcy debtor’s interest in her rent-stabilized lease be exempted from her bankruptcy estate pursuant to New York State Debtor and Creditor Law section 282 (2) as a ‘local public assistance benefit?’” On November 20, 2014, the Court answered that question by announcing, “We hold that <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DCD/10-A/282" target="_blank">section 282 (2)</a> of the Debtor and Creditor law exempts a debtor-tenant’s interest in a rent-stabilized lease.” This means that, now, those in New York don’t need to worry that they will lose their rent-stabilized or rent-controlled apartment if they file bankruptcy. This seems like a common-sense answer; however, this decision wasn’t assured from the beginning. There were cases in the lower courts that decided that rent-stabilized apartments were not protected in bankruptcy. Even in this case, the <a href="http://www.aaalawyer.com/New-York-Lawyer-Blog/ArticleID/47/Update-Bankruptcy-in-NY-with-Rent-Control-and-Rent-Stabilized-Apartments.aspx">lower courts</a> decided against the debtor seeking to file bankruptcy and keep her home, and there were dissenting opinions by two of the seven justices. It’s good to see that the majority in the Court of Appeals got it right. This should help millions of tenants in New York sleep better tonight.