[ { "slug": "detention-without-bond", "title": "No-bond detention for people who entered without inspection", "topic": "detention", "summary": "Since July 2025, DHS has treated people who entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested inside the country as applicants for admission who must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that reading in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Detained people have challenged it in habeas petitions and class actions, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs their detention, which lets an immigration judge consider release on bond. The question has reached every numbered federal court of appeals, and on October 1, 2026 the Supreme Court agreed to decide it in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104.", "status_code": "varies_by_circuit", "status_headline": "Split by circuit", "status_subhead": "Supreme Court review granted October 1, 2026", "status_detail": "Nine federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits) have held that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs these detentions, so a bond hearing is available. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have upheld the no-bond policy. The Supreme Court granted review in No. 26-104; the government's merits brief is due November 30, 2026, and no argument date is set.", "status_as_of": "2026-11-02", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100126zr_6j37.pdf", "date": "2026-10-01", "court": "scotus", "label": "Order granting certiorari, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha", "docket_number": "26-104" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html", "date": "2026-10-28", "court": "scotus", "label": "Order extending the merits briefing deadlines", "docket_number": "26-104" }, { "url": "https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/257044.P.pdf", "date": "2026-09-10", "court": "ca4", "label": "Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, published opinion describing the circuit split", "docket_number": "25-7044" }, { "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf", "date": "2026-02-06", "court": "ca5", "label": "Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, published opinion upholding the policy", "docket_number": "25-20496" }, { "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf", "date": "2026-03-25", "court": "ca8", "label": "Avila v. Bondi, published opinion upholding the policy", "docket_number": "25-3248" } ], "coverage": [ { "kind": "circuit_precedent", "text": "Published decisions in these nine circuits hold that people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the country are detained under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), so an immigration judge can consider them for release on bond. In the Ninth Circuit the mandate in Rodriguez Vazquez is stayed pending No. 26-104, which doesn't by itself suspend the published opinion as circuit precedent, and in the Eleventh Circuit the government's petition for rehearing en banc in Hernandez Alvarez is held in abeyance pending the same case.", "places": [ "ca1", "ca2", "ca3", "ca4", "ca6", "ca7", "ca9", "ca10", "ca11" ], "basis_url": "https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/257044.P.pdf" }, { "kind": "circuit_precedent", "text": "Fifth Circuit precedent (Buenrostro-Mendez, February 6, 2026) holds that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond for people who entered without inspection; the court denied rehearing en banc on April 9, 2026. On October 23, 2026 the en banc court separately held that three such detainees had no due-process right to bond hearings and vacated their habeas grants. Release orders in Tolentino-Rodriguez and two companion appeals are stayed pending appeal.", "places": [ "ca5" ], "basis_url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf" }, { "kind": "circuit_precedent", "text": "Eighth Circuit precedent (Avila v. Bondi, March 25, 2026) holds that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond for people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the country. The divided panel reversed a grant of habeas relief.", "places": [ "ca8" ], "basis_url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf" }, { "case": "ca1-25-2152", "kind": "class", "text": "Massachusetts class (Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz). On December 19, 2025 the district court declared that class members are detained under § 1226(a) and must be considered for bond, and on January 21, 2026 it clarified that the class includes anyone who met the definition on or after September 22, 2025 or meets it later. The First Circuit affirmed August 13, 2026; its mandate issued October 6. A September 22, 2026 order requires 72 hours' notice before a class member who has requested a bond hearing is transferred outside the First Circuit.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.289225/gov.uscourts.mad.289225.113.0.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.289225/gov.uscourts.mad.289225.113.0.pdf", "class_definition": "All people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are detained in a geographical area over which, as of September 22, 2025, an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative control court, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts, where: (a) the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), does not have an Expedited Removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and is not currently in proceedings before an immigration judge due to having been found to have a credible fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); (b) for the person’s most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry or after continuous detention upon arrival; (c) the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (d) the person is not subject to post-final order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231; and (e) the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States and has been continuously detained thereafter." }, { "case": "ca9-25-6842", "kind": "class", "text": "Tacoma class (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock). On September 30, 2025 the district court declared that class members are detained under § 1226(a); the Ninth Circuit affirmed on July 30, 2026, and its mandate is stayed pending No. 26-104. An October 1, 2026 order requires 72 hours' notice before a potential class member who has requested a bond hearing is moved to a facility in the Fifth or Eighth Circuit, until further order or the Supreme Court's decision in No. 26-104.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178.151.0.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178.32.0.pdf", "class_definition": "Bond Denial Class: All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." }, { "case": "cacd-5-25-cv-01873", "kind": "class", "text": "Class defined nationwide (Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, C.D. Cal.). The December 18, 2025 judgment declares class members detained under § 1226(a) and entitled to bond consideration, and vacates DHS's July 8, 2025 interim detention guidance. The March 31, 2026 stay limits this class order and judgment to C.D. Cal.: the Ninth Circuit stayed both \"insofar as they extend beyond the Central District of California.\" Later orders in appeals Nos. 25-7958 and 26-1044 haven't been confirmed for this page.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.05bbed59-6d48-493e-842f-0cda0edb71fb/gov.uscourts.ca9.05bbed59-6d48-493e-842f-0cda0edb71fb.17.0.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.980210/gov.uscourts.cacd.980210.93.0.pdf", "class_definition": "Bond Eligible Class: All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination." } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2152P-01A.pdf", "case": "ca1-25-2152", "date": "2026-08-13", "note": "Affirmed a classwide judgment for a Massachusetts class, 2–1. Mandate issued October 6, 2026.", "place": "ca1", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-3141_complete_opn.pdf", "case": "ca2-25-3141", "date": "2026-04-28", "note": "Rehearing en banc denied September 25, 2026. Supreme Court granted review October 1, 2026 (No. 26-104).", "place": "ca2", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/261150p.pdf", "case": "ca3-26-1150", "date": "2026-08-28", "note": "Held the detentions without hearings violated the INA and due process and affirmed release orders, 2–1.", "place": "ca3", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/257044.P.pdf", "case": "ca4-25-7044", "date": "2026-09-10", "note": "Affirmed habeas relief in consolidated appeals, 2–1.", "place": "ca4", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf", "case": "ca5-25-20496", "date": "2026-02-06", "note": "Held § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond, 2–1; rehearing en banc denied April 9, 2026. Cert petition No. 26-43 pending; the docket shows no action after the September 28 conference.", "place": "ca5", "ruling": "Held the statute requires detention without bond", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50183-CV1.pdf", "case": "ca5-26-50183", "date": "2026-10-23", "note": "A different question: due process, not which statute applies. Taking § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applying under Buenrostro-Mendez, the en banc court held three detainees had no due-process right to bond hearings and vacated their habeas grants.", "place": "ca5", "ruling": "Held no due-process right to a bond hearing", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0139p-06.pdf", "case": "ca6-25-1965", "date": "2026-05-11", "note": "Affirmed habeas relief, 2–1. Government cert petition No. 25-1415 pending; the docket shows no action after the September 28 conference.", "place": "ca6", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD07-30%2FC%3A25-3127%3AJ%3AKolar%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3583247%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display", "case": "ca7-25-3127", "date": "2026-07-30", "note": "Reversed the denial of habeas relief. The earlier Castañon Nava panel (May 5, 2026) produced no majority on the statutory question.", "place": "ca7", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf", "case": "ca8-25-3248", "date": "2026-03-25", "note": "Joined the Fifth Circuit, 2–1, and reversed a grant of habeas relief.", "place": "ca8", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/30/25-6842.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-6842", "date": "2026-07-30", "note": "Affirmed a classwide judgment for a Tacoma class, 2–1. Mandate stayed October 6, 2026 pending No. 26-104; the published opinion remains circuit precedent. government cert petition No. 26-568 filed October 28.", "place": "ca9", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111461009.pdf", "case": "ca10-26-6019", "date": "2026-06-30", "note": "Reversed the denial of habeas relief; on remand the government must give a bond hearing within seven days or release him. Mandate issued July 22, 2026.", "place": "ca10", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202514065.pdf", "case": "ca11-25-14065", "date": "2026-05-06", "note": "Affirmed habeas relief, 2–1. The government's petition for rehearing en banc is held in abeyance pending No. 26-104 (October 13, 2026).", "place": "ca11", "position": "against_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "Supreme Court schedule in No. 26-104: the question granted is whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention pending removal proceedings of people present in the United States without having been admitted. On October 28, 2026 the Court extended the deadlines: the joint appendix and the government's merits brief are due November 30, 2026, and the respondent's brief January 13, 2027. No argument date is set.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/26-00104qp.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html" ] }, { "text": "Other petitions and held appeals: the dockets in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43, and Putra v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415, record no action since the September 28, 2026 conference. In Quinones v. Rodriguez Vazquez, No. 26-568 (filed October 28), the government asks the Court to hold the petition pending No. 26-104. On October 6 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its en banc briefing order in Rodriguez Vazquez and stayed its mandate; on October 13 the Eleventh Circuit held the en banc petition in Hernandez Alvarez in abeyance.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1415.html", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-568.html", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71839565/rodriguez-vazquez-v-bostock-et-al/#entry-89", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.93919/gov.uscourts.ca11.93919.82.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Guerrero Orellana: a September 15, 2026 order (ECF 206) stayed constitutional Counts II–IV and dismissed the APA claim to vacate Matter of Yajure Hurtado (Count V); the statutory class judgment stands. Transfers: a September 22 order requires 72 hours’ notice to the class member, attorney and class counsel before ICE moves a class member who requested a bond hearing outside the First Circuit; the October 20 reconsideration motion shows no ruling. An October 1 order in Rodriguez Vazquez requires the same notice before such a potential class member goes to the Fifth or Eighth Circuit.", "urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71384338/feed/", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.289225/gov.uscourts.mad.289225.212.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.289225/gov.uscourts.mad.289225.214.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178/gov.uscourts.wawd.346178.151.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "In the Fifth Circuit, the en banc court's October 23, 2026 decision in Sosnava Rodriguez decides a due-process question: whether people held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) must get individualized bond hearings. It held they need not and that the length of the petitioners' detention raised no constitutional issue on those records, and it directed the mandate to issue forthwith. Which statute applies was settled in the circuit by Buenrostro-Mendez.", "urls": [ "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-50183-CV1.pdf", "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20496-CV0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Related: the 2022 Castañon Nava consent decree gives a separate route to release for people arrested without a warrant in the ICE Chicago area. Its settlement class: \"All current and future persons arrested without a warrant for a civil violation of U.S. immigration laws within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office.\" On May 5, 2026 the Seventh Circuit affirmed release of confirmed class members arrested in violation of the decree. That relief rests on the decree, not on a § 1225 or § 1226 holding; Judge Pryor concurred in the judgment without reaching the statute.", "urls": [ "https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D05-05/C:25-3050:J:Lee:aut:T:fnOp:N:3535766:S:0", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.352901/gov.uscourts.ilnd.352901.158.0.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html", "case": "ca2-25-3141", "date": "2026-11-30", "label": "Joint appendix and government's merits brief due, No. 26-104" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-568.html", "case": "ca9-25-6842", "date": "2026-11-30", "label": "Response due to the cert petition in Quinones v. Rodriguez Vazquez, No. 26-568" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html", "case": "ca2-25-3141", "date": "2027-01-13", "label": "Respondent's merits brief due, No. 26-104" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html", "case": "ca2-25-3141", "date": null, "label": "Oral argument in No. 26-104 (not yet set)" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html", "case": "ca5-25-20496", "date": null, "label": "Supreme Court action on the cert petition in No. 26-43 (not yet set)" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1415.html", "case": "ca6-25-1965", "date": null, "label": "Supreme Court action on the cert petition in No. 25-1415 (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "If you entered the United States without being inspected at the border and ICE later arrested you inside the country, the government's position since 2025 is that you must stay detained and can't get a bond hearing. Most federal appeals courts have said that's wrong and that people in this situation can ask an immigration judge for bond. The appeals courts for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi (Fifth Circuit) and for Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota (Eighth Circuit) have agreed with the government. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the question but hasn't set a date to hear it. Until then, what applies to you can depend on where you're held and whether you're part of a class action. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/detention-without-bond/", "cases": [ "ca2-25-3141-cunha-v-freden", "ca11-25-14065-25-14075-fidencio-hernandez-alvarez-v-warden-federal-detention-center-miami-ismael-cerro-perez-v-assistant-field-office-director", "ca3-26-1150-26-1454-gabriel-antonio-buele-morocho-v-warden-philadelphia-fdc-wanderson-lopes-de-andrade-v-director-philadelphia-field-office-ice", "ca1-25-2152-26-1094-guerrero-orellana-v-moniz", "ca5-26-50183-26-50219-26-50221-ignacio-sosnava-rodriguez-v-sylvester-ortega-alejandro-villegas-angel-v-markwayne-mullin-miguel-angel-gomez-alvarado-v-miguel-vergara", "ca7-25-3127-jaciel-cirrus-rojas-v-samuel-olson-scott-smith", "ca5-26-20424-26-20427-26-20428-jessica-tolentino-rodriguez-v-todd-blanche", "ca8-25-3248-joaquin-herrera-avila-v-bondi", "ca6-25-1965-25-1969-25-1978-25-1982-juan-manuel-lopez-campos-v-kevin-raycraft-juan-carlos-sanchez-alvarez-v-markwayne-mullin-jose-daniel-contreras-cervantes-v-kevin-raycraft-jesus-jose-pizarro-reyes-v-kevin-raycraft", "cacd-5-25-cv-01873-25-7958-26-1044-lazaro-maldonado-bautista-v-ernesto-santacruz-jr", "ca7-25-3050-margarito-castanon-nava-v-u-s-department-of-homeland-security", "ca4-25-7044-25-7050-oscar-enrique-lopez-garcia-v-robert-guadian-juan-jose-rivera-v-robert-guadian", "ca10-26-6019-rigoberto-santillan-quiroz-v-mullin", "ca9-25-6842-rodriguez-vazquez-v-bostock", "ca5-25-20496-victor-buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-10-01", "status_code": "varies_by_circuit", "headline": "Split by circuit", "reason": "The Supreme Court granted certiorari in No. 26-104", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100126zr_6j37.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-04-28", "status_code": "varies_by_circuit", "headline": "Split by circuit", "reason": "The Second Circuit rejected the policy in Cunha, against the Fifth (Feb 6) and Eighth (Mar 25) Circuits", "basis_url": "https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-3141_complete_opn.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "h1b-fee", "title": "The $100,000 H-1B payment", "topic": "employment_student_visas", "summary": "Proclamation 10973 (September 19, 2025) requires a $100,000 payment with new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States, and Proclamation 11069 (September 18, 2026) extended it to September 21, 2027. DHS and the State Department carried it out through memos, FAQs, a fee schedule and a payment website. Twenty states led by California challenged that implementation in the District of Massachusetts, and employers, unions, schools and religious organizations led by Global Nurse Force sued in the Northern District of California. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities challenged the proclamation and its implementation in the District of Columbia, which upheld the payment; that case is on appeal.", "status_code": "blocked", "status_headline": "Payment implementation set aside", "status_subhead": "One district court upheld it; appeals pending in the First, Ninth and D.C. Circuits", "status_detail": "The District of Massachusetts vacated the agency policies imposing the $100,000 payment on June 8, 2026, and the First Circuit denied a stay pending appeal on July 24. On September 30 the Northern District of California vacated the agencies' policies under both proclamations and barred enforcing them until notice-and-comment rulemaking. Neither invalidated the proclamations themselves. The District of Columbia upheld the payment in another case, a district-court ruling, not a circuit split; its appeal was argued in March 2026. Global Nurse Force: stay of district proceedings denied October 28.", "status_as_of": "2026-11-02", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.107.0_1.pdf", "date": "2026-06-08", "court": "mad", "label": "Judgment vacating the agency actions, State of California v. Mullin", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-13829" }, { "url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1699O-01A.pdf", "date": "2026-07-24", "court": "ca1", "label": "Order denying a stay pending appeal", "docket_number": "26-1699" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.130.0.pdf", "date": "2026-09-30", "court": "cand", "label": "Order vacating and enjoining the agency policies, Global Nurse Force v. Trump", "docket_number": "4:25-cv-08454" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953.54.0.pdf", "date": "2025-12-23", "court": "dcd", "label": "Memorandum opinion upholding the payment, Chamber of Commerce v. DHS", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-03675" }, { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71541425/global-nurse-force-v-trump/#entry-144", "date": "2026-10-28", "court": "cand", "label": "Text-only entry denying stay of district proceedings, ECF 144 (scheduling text inconsistent)", "docket_number": "4:25-cv-08454" } ], "coverage": [ { "kind": "everywhere", "text": "The Massachusetts judgment vacates ten listed DHS and State Department actions \"insofar as they impose a $100,000 payment obligation on H-1B petitions.\" The court refused to limit relief to the plaintiff states, explaining that vacatur \"is a remedy targeted at an agency's unlawful action, rather than one limited to the particular parties in a given case,\" and declared the policy \"VACATED in its entirety.\" The listed actions date from September and October 2025.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.107.0_1.pdf" }, { "kind": "everywhere", "text": "The California order vacates and remands the agency policies and enjoins the agency defendants \"from enforcing or implementing the Agency Policies made pursuant to or in implementation of Proclamation No. 10973 and its extension in Proclamation No. 11069, until notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA and regulatory flexibility analyses under the RFA have been conducted.\" The court rejected the government's request to limit relief to the plaintiffs, did not enjoin the proclamations, and denied provisional class certification without prejudice.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.130.0.pdf" } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.106.0_1.pdf", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-13829", "date": "2026-06-08", "note": "Summary judgment for 20 states on all four claims: the policy levies a tax without a delegation from Congress, exceeds the agencies' statutory authority, skipped notice and comment, and is arbitrary and capricious. Policy vacated; appeal is First Circuit No. 26-1699.", "place": "mad", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1699O-01A.pdf", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-13829", "date": "2026-07-24", "note": "A stay ruling, not a merits decision: denied a stay pending appeal because the government hadn't made a strong showing it is likely to succeed. The merits appeal is pending.", "place": "ca1", "stage": "stay", "ruling": "Stay denied pending appeal", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.130.0.pdf", "case": "cand-4-25-cv-08454", "date": "2026-09-30", "note": "Preliminary relief: the agency policies are likely arbitrary and capricious and needed notice-and-comment rulemaking and regulatory flexibility analysis. Proclamations not enjoined. Appeal is Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667.", "place": "cand", "stage": "preliminary", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953.54.0.pdf", "case": "dcd-1-25-cv-03675", "date": "2025-12-23", "note": "Granted the government summary judgment: the Proclamation rests on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) and isn't ultra vires, and the agencies' implementing actions don't violate the APA. Appeal is D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473, argued March 2026.", "place": "dcd", "position": "for_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "On June 12, 2026 the Massachusetts court denied a stay pending appeal but stayed its own order administratively \"pending a decision\" by the First Circuit on the government's stay motion, provided the motion was filed by June 18 (Doc. 113). The First Circuit denied that motion on July 24. The government's merits appeal, No. 26-1699, is pending; this page doesn't yet have its briefing or argument schedule.", "urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72031571/state-of-california-v-noem/#entry-113", "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1699O-01A.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Global Nurse Force: the government appealed the September 30 order on October 9, 2026 (Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667). The Ninth Circuit's schedule sets the opening brief for November 6 and the answering brief for December 4, with an optional reply 21 days after the answering brief. The district docket and the parties' October 20 joint statement don't mention a request to the Ninth Circuit to stay the order.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.132.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.138.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.142.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "A minute entry filed October 28, 2026 (ECF 144) records denial of the government’s motion to stay district proceedings. It contains conflicting conference and administrative-record deadline text, so those scheduling dates remain unverified pending clarification. This is a procedural ruling and does not stay the September 30 preliminary relief.", "urls": [ "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71541425/global-nurse-force-v-trump/#entry-144" ] }, { "text": "Chamber of Commerce v. DHS: the District of Columbia granted the government summary judgment on December 23, 2025, and the plaintiffs appealed (D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473). The court's recording of the argument is in its March 2026 archive, and the parties' October 20, 2026 filing in Global Nurse Force gives the date as March 9. No decision has been found.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953.53.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953.54.0.pdf", "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/03/25-5473.mp3", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.142.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Proclamation 11069 extended the payment requirement for 12 months, to 12:00 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2027. The California order expressly covers agency policies implementing both proclamations; the Massachusetts judgment lists ten specific agency actions issued in September and October 2025.", "urls": [ "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/23/2026-19554/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.130.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.107.0_1.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.138.0.pdf", "case": "cand-4-25-cv-08454", "date": "2026-11-06", "label": "Government's opening brief due, Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667" }, { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71541425/global-nurse-force-v-trump/#entry-144", "case": "cand-4-25-cv-08454", "date": null, "label": "Administrative-record production in Global Nurse Force; deadline requires a clarified scheduling entry" }, { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71541425/global-nurse-force-v-trump/#entry-144", "case": "cand-4-25-cv-08454", "date": null, "label": "Further case management conference in Global Nurse Force; date requires a clarified scheduling entry" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.138.0.pdf", "case": "cand-4-25-cv-08454", "date": "2026-12-04", "label": "Answering brief due, Ninth Circuit No. 26-6667" }, { "case": "mad-1-25-cv-13829", "date": null, "label": "First Circuit decision on the government's appeal, No. 26-1699 (not yet set)" }, { "case": "dcd-1-25-cv-03675", "date": null, "label": "D.C. Circuit decision in Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, No. 25-5473 (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "In September 2025 the President ordered that employers pay $100,000 with new H-1B petitions for workers outside the United States, and in September 2026 he extended that order for another year. Federal courts in Massachusetts and California have set aside the government's rules for collecting the payment, and an appeals court refused to put the Massachusetts ruling on hold while the government appeals. A court in Washington, D.C. upheld the payment in a different case, which is also on appeal. These rulings can still change. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to a particular petition.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/h1b-fee/", "cases": [ "mad-1-25-cv-13829-26-1699-state-of-california-v-mullin", "dcd-1-25-cv-03675-25-5473-chamber-of-commerce-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-u-s-department-of-homeland-security", "cand-4-25-cv-08454-global-nurse-force-v-trump" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-09-30", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Payment implementation set aside", "reason": "N.D. Cal. vacated and enjoined the agency policies under both proclamations", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457426/gov.uscourts.cand.457426.130.0.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-07-24", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Set aside by a federal court", "reason": "The First Circuit denied a stay pending appeal", "basis_url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1699O-01A.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-06-12", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "Vacatur temporarily stayed", "reason": "D. Mass. administratively stayed its judgment pending the First Circuit's stay ruling (Doc. 113); the June 12 date is from the docket entry", "basis_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72031571/state-of-california-v-noem/#entry-113" }, { "as_of": "2026-06-08", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Set aside by a federal court", "reason": "D. Mass. vacated the agency policies imposing the payment (Docs. 106, 107)", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.293201/gov.uscourts.mad.293201.107.0_1.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2025-12-23", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "In effect; upheld by one court", "reason": "D.D.C. granted the government summary judgment in Chamber of Commerce v. DHS", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953/gov.uscourts.dcd.285953.54.0.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "tps-terminations", "title": "Terminations of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations", "topic": "tps_parole", "summary": "Since early 2025, DHS has ended Temporary Protected Status for a series of countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Yemen and Somalia, by terminating designations and, for Venezuela and Haiti, vacating or shortening extensions granted in January 2025 and July 2024. TPS holders and organizations sued country by country, mostly under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On June 25, 2026, in Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars non-constitutional challenges to these decisions and reversed orders that had postponed the Haiti and Syria terminations. Constitutional claims and the Venezuela case, now back in the Ninth Circuit, continue. This page tracks the Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen cases; other countries' cases aren't reflected yet.", "status_code": "in_effect", "status_headline": "In effect for every tracked country", "status_subhead": "Supreme Court stay of the Venezuela judgment expected to end November 6, 2026", "status_detail": "No court order currently stops the terminations for Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Somalia or Venezuela, but the posture varies by country. The Supreme Court reversed the Haiti and Syria postponements on June 25, 2026; a district court vacated the Yemen postponement on August 11 and another denied Somalia interim relief on August 14. For Venezuela, a 2025 judgment setting aside the vacatur and termination is stayed by the Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit's October 30 order expects that stay to end November 6, 2026, and denies the government a new stay.", "status_as_of": "2026-11-02", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf", "date": "2026-06-25", "court": "scotus", "label": "Opinion, Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot (Syria and Haiti)", "docket_number": "25-1083" }, { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "date": "2026-10-30", "court": "ca9", "label": "Order denying stay pending appeal (Venezuela)", "docket_number": "25-5724" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a326_3ebh.pdf", "date": "2025-10-03", "court": "scotus", "label": "Order granting stay of the Venezuela parts of the judgment", "docket_number": "25A326" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283214/gov.uscourts.dcd.283214.144.0_1.pdf", "date": "2026-08-05", "court": "dcd", "label": "Order confirming the Haiti stay is no longer in effect, ECF 144", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-02471" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.65.0_4.pdf", "date": "2026-08-11", "court": "nysd", "label": "Memo-endorsed order vacating the Yemen postponement, ECF 65", "docket_number": "1:26-cv-02103" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.297215/gov.uscourts.mad.297215.109.0.pdf", "date": "2026-08-14", "court": "mad", "label": "Memorandum and order lifting stay, denying interim relief (Somalia), ECF 109", "docket_number": "1:26-cv-11201" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.71.0.pdf", "date": "2026-10-06", "court": "nysd", "label": "Opinion and order dismissing most Yemen claims and denying renewed preliminary relief, Noor ECF 71 / Abdo ECF 114", "docket_number": "1:26-cv-02103 / 1:26-cv-02280" } ], "coverage": [ { "kind": "everywhere", "text": "Venezuela only: September 5, 2025 order and judgment; Venezuela relief stayed (No. 25A326). The Northern District of California held unlawful and set aside the Secretary's vacatur of a pending TPS extension for Venezuelan nationals and her termination of that status. The Supreme Court stayed those parts on October 3, 2025. The Ninth Circuit's October 30, 2026 order, which calls the ruling a preliminary injunction, says that stay expires when the Supreme Court's mandate issues on November 6, 2026, and denies a new stay.", "basis_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "operative": false } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf", "case": "scotus-25a952", "date": "2026-06-25", "note": "Syria. The TPS statute bars non-constitutional challenges to termination decisions; S.D.N.Y. postponement reversed.", "place": "scotus", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Held most challenges unreviewable; postponement reversed", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf", "case": "scotus-25a999", "date": "2026-06-25", "note": "Haiti. Equal-protection claim unlikely to succeed; D.D.C. stay reversed.", "place": "scotus", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Equal-protection claim unlikely to succeed; stay reversed", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-05724", "date": "2026-10-30", "note": "Venezuela. Denied the government's stay pending appeal after the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's merits decision on Oct. 5; not a merits ruling.", "place": "ca9", "stage": "stay", "ruling": "Further stay denied after remand", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.65.0_4.pdf", "case": "nysd-1-26-cv-02103", "date": "2026-08-11", "note": "Yemen. Vacated the May 1 postponement for the reasons in the July 20 ruling.", "place": "nysd", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Postponement vacated", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.297215/gov.uscourts.mad.297215.109.0.pdf", "case": "mad-1-26-cv-11201", "date": "2026-08-14", "note": "Somalia. Lifted the administrative stay and denied postponement and a preliminary injunction; appeal is First Circuit No. 26-1930.", "place": "mad", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Postponement and preliminary injunction denied", "position": "for_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "As of October 31, 2026. Haiti: on August 5 the D.D.C. confirmed its stay of the November 28, 2025 termination notice has ended; other claims continue. Syria: the S.D.N.Y. postponement was reversed; the government cross-moved September 11 to dismiss or for summary judgment. Yemen: postponement vacated August 11; on October 6 the court dismissed all claims except intentional discrimination and denied a second preliminary-injunction motion; on October 20 it held certification and discovery-stay requests in abeyance. Somalia: interim relief denied August 14; appeal is First Circuit No. 26-1930.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283214/gov.uscourts.dcd.283214.144.0_1.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.651493/gov.uscourts.nysd.651493.95.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.65.0_4.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.297215/gov.uscourts.mad.297215.109.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.71.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.75.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083, holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars review of non-constitutional claims about a TPS designation, termination or extension, including procedural claims. It decided one constitutional claim, Haiti's equal-protection claim, at the interim-relief stage. On August 14 the Somalia court held it may still hear constitutional claims but found the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed. In the Venezuela and Haiti case, the parties agree two equal-protection counts remain, and the court denied leave to add three new constitutional claims as futile (ECF 487).", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.297215/gov.uscourts.mad.297215.109.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444868/gov.uscourts.cand.444868.487.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Venezuela procedure. On October 5, 2026 the Supreme Court granted the petition in No. 26-48, vacated the Ninth Circuit's January 2026 decision affirming the judgment, and remanded in light of Mullin v. Doe. The government moved that day for a stay to take effect November 6. The Ninth Circuit denied it and an alternative administrative stay of at least 21 days, and will set expedited merits briefing. Its order calls the district ruling a preliminary injunction; the Supreme Court's 2025 stay order describes it as a final judgment.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100526zor_2a34.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-48.html", "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a326_3ebh.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Dates that matter for Venezuela. Per the N.D. Cal.'s October 14, 2026 order, the January 2025 extension that the Secretary vacated would have run the 2023 Venezuela designation from April 2, 2025 to October 2, 2026, and her termination set an April 2, 2025 end date. Plaintiffs' October 15 opposition in the Ninth Circuit disputed the government's mootness argument; no court has ruled on mootness in the orders reviewed here.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444868/gov.uscourts.cand.444868.487.0.pdf", "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_for_Immigration_Law_and_Policy/NTPSA_I_Plaintiffs'_Opposition_to_Stay.pdf" ] }, { "text": "What this page hasn't confirmed as of October 31, 2026: whether the government seeks a new stay after the October 30 order, when the Supreme Court's judgment is actually sent down, what the expired extension means for current Venezuelan holders, and later orders in the other countries' cases. November 6 is a date to recheck, not an automatic change in status.", "urls": [ "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-48.html" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-05724", "date": "2026-11-06", "label": "Supreme Court stay of the Venezuela judgment set to expire as its mandate issues in No. 26-48" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444868/gov.uscourts.cand.444868.487.0.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-05724", "date": "2026-11-17", "label": "Status conference, N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-01766 (Venezuela and Haiti)" }, { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/25-5724.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-05724", "date": null, "label": "Ninth Circuit expedited merits briefing schedule, No. 25-5724 (not yet set)" }, { "case": "mad-1-26-cv-11201", "date": null, "label": "First Circuit decision in the Somalia appeal, No. 26-1930 (not yet set)" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704/gov.uscourts.nysd.659704.75.0.pdf", "case": "nysd-1-26-cv-02103", "date": null, "label": "Further proceedings on surviving Yemen intentional-discrimination claims; certification and discovery-stay requests held in abeyance" }, { "case": "scotus-25a952", "date": null, "label": "S.D.N.Y. ruling on cross-motions in the Syria case, No. 1:25-cv-08686 (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "Temporary Protected Status (TPS) lets people from some countries live and work in the U.S. for a time. The government has ended TPS for many countries, and people sued. In June 2026 the Supreme Court said courts can't review most challenges to these decisions. Claims based on the Constitution are still being argued. Right now, no court order stops the end of TPS for Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Somalia or Venezuela. For Venezuela, a court ruled against the government in 2025, but that ruling has been on hold. The hold is set to end on November 6, 2026. What that means for Venezuelans isn't settled yet. The cases are still going. If you have or had TPS, an immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/tps-terminations/", "cases": [ "scotus-25a952-dahlia-doe-v-noem", "mad-1-26-cv-11201-african-communities-together-v-noem", "scotus-25a999-fritz-emmanuel-lesly-miot-v-trump", "ca9-25-05724-national-tps-alliance-v-noem", "nysd-1-26-cv-02103-1-26-cv-02280-noor-doe-v-noem-abdo-doe-v-noem" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-08-14", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "In effect for every tracked country", "reason": "D. Mass. lifted the Somalia administrative stay and denied interim relief, three days after the Yemen postponement was vacated.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.297215/gov.uscourts.mad.297215.109.0.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-06-25", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "headline": "Supreme Court reversed Haiti and Syria orders", "reason": "Mullin v. Doe reversed the Haiti and Syria postponements; the Yemen postponement and the Somalia administrative stay remained.", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "birthright-citizenship", "title": "Executive orders limiting birthright citizenship", "topic": "citizenship", "summary": "Executive Order 14160 (January 20, 2025) provided that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are not citizens at birth. On June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that those children are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment and affirmed a nationwide class injunction. On August 6, 2026 the President issued Executive Order 14418, which directs agencies not to recognize the citizenship of other groups of U.S.-born children when neither parent is a citizen: children of certain foreign government employees or of members of designated terrorist groups, children whose parents paid to obtain birthright citizenship, and children born in some U.S. territories. Families and immigrant advocacy groups are challenging both orders.", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "status_headline": "2025 order blocked; 2026 order blocked for a class", "status_subhead": "Supreme Court ruled for the children in Trump v. Barbara on June 30, 2026", "status_detail": "2025 order: in Trump v. Barbara the Supreme Court held that children born here to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth, and affirmed a nationwide class injunction against Executive Order 14160. 2026 order: on September 2, 2026 a federal court in Maryland barred enforcing Executive Order 14418 against the same class, except section 2(d) on territories and agency guidance under section 3(b); a motion to dissolve or stay that injunction has been pending since September 8. A D.C. class action seeks relief for others the 2026 order reaches.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf", "date": "2026-06-30", "court": "scotus", "label": "Trump v. Barbara, opinion of the Court", "docket_number": "25-365" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.182.0.pdf", "date": "2026-09-02", "court": "mdd", "label": "Order and preliminary injunction against Executive Order 14418, CASA v. Trump", "docket_number": "8:25-cv-00201" }, { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74859805/nathan-v-trump/", "date": "2026-10-23", "court": "dcd", "label": "Minute order setting the preliminary-injunction and class-certification hearing, Nathan v. Trump", "docket_number": "1:26-cv-03377" } ], "coverage": [ { "case": "scotus-25-365", "kind": "class", "text": "Nationwide class provisionally certified by the District of New Hampshire on July 10, 2025. The court enjoined DHS, State, Agriculture and CMS from enforcing Executive Order 14160, and the Supreme Court affirmed on June 30, 2026. This injunction concerns the 2025 order only; the New Hampshire plaintiffs withdrew their request to extend it to the 2026 order on September 23, 2026.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.64.0.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.63.0.pdf", "class_definition": "All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth." }, { "case": "mdd-8-25-cv-00201", "kind": "class", "text": "Nationwide class certified by the District of Maryland on August 7, 2025; the court described it as identical to the Barbara class. An August 7, 2025 injunction bars enforcing Executive Order 14160 against class members, and a September 2, 2026 injunction bars enforcing Executive Order 14418 against them, except section 2(d) on territories and the issuance of guidance under section 3(b). The government's September 8 motion to dissolve or stay the 2026 injunction is pending.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.182.0.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.130.0.pdf", "class_definition": "Any child who has been born or will be born in the United States after February 19, 2025, (1) whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) whose mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth." } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf", "case": "scotus-25-365", "date": "2026-06-30", "note": "Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause. Affirmed the class injunction; opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.", "place": "scotus", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.65.0.pdf", "case": "scotus-25-365", "date": "2025-07-10", "note": "Provisionally certified a nationwide class and preliminarily enjoined Executive Order 14160.", "place": "nhd", "stage": "preliminary", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.181.0.pdf", "case": "mdd-8-25-cv-00201", "date": "2026-09-02", "note": "Preliminarily enjoined Executive Order 14418 as to the certified class, except section 2(d), because Barbara held the class members are citizens at birth. Motion to dissolve or stay pending.", "place": "mdd", "stage": "preliminary", "position": "against_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "The Supreme Court's judgment issued August 3, 2026. On August 17 the First Circuit lifted its abeyance of the government's appeal and remanded Barbara to the District of New Hampshire for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.84.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Executive Order 14418 (August 6, 2026) applies when neither parent is a U.S. citizen and a parent is an \"alien enemy\" (defined to include members of designated foreign terrorist organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists) or a foreign government employee as the order defines it, a parent paid to obtain birthright citizenship for the child or committed fraud to obtain citizenship, or the child was born in a territory where federal statute doesn't confer citizenship. Agencies were to issue public guidance within 30 days.", "urls": [ "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/11/2026-16403/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship" ] }, { "text": "In Barbara, the plaintiffs asked the New Hampshire court in August and September 2026 to extend its injunction to the 2026 order, add plaintiffs and certify a new class. According to their September 23 notice, the court said at a September 22 conference that the new claims were in effect a new case, and they withdrew those motions; the new plaintiffs other than Barbara's daughter said they would sue elsewhere.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.93.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.96.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "In CASA, the September 2 injunction leaves agencies free to issue guidance under section 3(b) of the 2026 order; the government moved on September 8 to dissolve or stay it, briefing closed October 6, and no ruling appears on the docket. Nathan v. Trump, filed September 28, proposes a nationwide class of children whose parent the government places in sections 2(a)-(c), and their parents, and asks the court to vacate DHS's interim final rule on children of foreign government employees (91 FR 57249, effective September 4, 2026). A hearing is set for November 12.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.182.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.183.0.pdf", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69563661/casa-inc-v-trump/", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297026/gov.uscourts.dcd.297026.1.0.pdf", "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/09/2026-18345/registration-of-lawful-permanent-residence-for-children-born-to-foreign-government-employees-in-the", "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74859805/nathan-v-trump/" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74859805/nathan-v-trump/", "case": "dcd-1-26-cv-03377", "date": "2026-11-12", "label": "Hearing on classwide preliminary injunction and class certification, Nathan v. Trump (D.D.C.)" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.183.0.pdf", "case": "mdd-8-25-cv-00201", "date": null, "label": "Ruling on the government's motion to dissolve or stay the September 2 injunction, CASA v. Trump (not yet set)" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710/gov.uscourts.nhd.65710.96.0.pdf", "case": "scotus-25-365", "date": null, "label": "Final judgment on the remaining claims in Barbara (D.N.H.) (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "If your child was born in the United States, the Supreme Court decided in June 2026 that the child is a U.S. citizen even if the parents were here without legal status or on a temporary visa. In August 2026 the President signed a new order saying some other children born here aren't citizens when neither parent is a U.S. citizen. It covers children of certain foreign government workers, children of people the government lists as terrorists, children whose parents paid to get them citizenship, and children born in some U.S. territories. A Maryland court has barred enforcing the new order against the class of children in the Supreme Court case, which has a set definition. It leaves out the part on U.S. territories and lets agencies issue guidance. Another lawsuit asks a court in Washington, D.C. to protect more children. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to your family.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/birthright-citizenship/", "cases": [ "scotus-25-365-barbara-v-trump", "mdd-8-25-cv-00201-casa-inc-v-trump", "dcd-1-26-cv-03377-nathan-v-trump" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-09-02", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "headline": "2025 order blocked; 2026 order blocked for a class", "reason": "D. Md. enjoined Executive Order 14418 as to the certified class in CASA v. Trump", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.182.0.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-08-06", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "headline": "New order issued; no order-specific injunction yet", "reason": "The President issued Executive Order 14418", "basis_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/11/2026-16403/continuing-to-protect-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship" }, { "as_of": "2026-06-30", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Blocked for a nationwide class", "reason": "Trump v. Barbara affirmed the class injunction against Executive Order 14160", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "expedited-removal-expansion", "title": "Expansion of expedited removal to people anywhere in the U.S. for less than two years", "topic": "removal", "summary": "On January 21, 2025, DHS designated for expedited removal, anywhere in the country, noncitizens who haven't been admitted or paroled and can't show an immigration officer that they've been continuously present for two years (90 Fed. Reg. 8139). Before 2025, the designations in effect reached people encountered within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entry and certain people who arrived by sea. A January 23, 2025 memorandum from the acting DHS secretary told officers how to apply it. Make the Road New York, a membership organization, challenged the designation and memorandum in the District of Columbia, where the INA channels challenges to the expedited-removal system, arguing chiefly that the process violates due process.", "status_code": "in_effect", "status_headline": "In effect nationwide since July 17, 2026", "status_subhead": "Rehearing requested July 27, 2026", "status_detail": "On June 23, 2026, a divided D.C. Circuit panel held that Make the Road hadn't shown the 2025 designation and the Huffman memorandum likely violate due process, and vacated the district court's August 29, 2025 stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, which had applied nationwide. Because the mandate is withheld until any rehearing petition is decided, the court on July 17 stayed the district court's stay in its entirety pending the mandate. No court order currently stops DHS from applying expedited removal under the 2025 designation.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf", "date": "2026-06-23", "court": "cadc", "label": "Opinion vacating the § 705 stay", "docket_number": "25-5320" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359.1208862862.0.pdf", "date": "2026-06-23", "court": "cadc", "label": "Order withholding the mandate", "docket_number": "25-5320" }, { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71275483/make-the-road-new-york-v-kristi-noem/", "date": "2026-07-17", "court": "cadc", "label": "Order staying the district court's § 705 stay pending the mandate (Doc. 2183702; docket)", "docket_number": "25-5320" } ], "coverage": [], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf", "case": "cadc-25-5320", "date": "2026-06-23", "note": "Vacated the nationwide § 705 stay: plaintiffs unlikely to show the written directives violate due process. 2-1, Wilkins, J., dissenting. En banc petition filed July 27.", "place": "cadc", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Stay of the policy vacated; challenge unlikely to succeed", "position": "for_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "Who the 2025 designation reaches: noncitizens inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C) or (a)(7) who haven't been admitted or paroled and haven't affirmatively shown, to an immigration officer's satisfaction, two years of continuous presence, wherever they're encountered. The 2002 (arrivals by sea) and 2004 (100 miles, 14 days) designations remain and weren't at issue.", "urls": [ "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01720/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal", "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Venue and review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3), challenges to the expedited-removal statute, its regulations or written policy directives must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, within statutory time limits. Habeas review of an individual expedited removal order is limited to whether the person is a noncitizen, whether an order issued, and whether the person has LPR, refugee or asylee status (§ 1252(e)(2)).", "urls": [ "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Procedural path. The district court's August 29, 2025 order postponed and stayed the designation and, insofar as it implements the designation, the Huffman memorandum. On November 22, 2025 a motions panel stayed that order only to the extent it required changes to credible-fear procedures. The merits panel vacated the stay June 23, 2026; on July 17 (Doc. 2183702) it stayed the district court's order in full pending the mandate and denied expedited issuance of the mandate.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276674/gov.uscourts.dcd.276674.65.0.pdf", "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/11/25-5320CHSN.pdf", "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359.1208862862.0.pdf", "https://assets.aila.org/files/ef1112d3-5e4d-49c8-95f4-cd77ea8037b1/26062463a.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Parolees are the subject of a separate case. On August 11, 2026, the D.C. Circuit vacated a district court stay that had barred applying expedited removal to people paroled at a port of entry, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin, No. 25-5289). That case isn't tracked on this page.", "urls": [ "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/08/25-5289-2187613.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Individual habeas challenges have met jurisdictional bars: the First Circuit (Alawieh v. Mullin, Oct. 13, 2026) and the Eleventh Circuit (Pitaluga Nunez, Oct. 28, 2026, unpublished) affirmed dismissals, for lack of jurisdiction, of claims challenging an expedited removal order's validity or placement in expedited removal.", "urls": [ "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-2238P-01A.pdf", "https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202513646.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71275483/make-the-road-new-york-v-kristi-noem/", "case": "cadc-25-5320", "date": null, "label": "D.C. Circuit action on Make the Road's July 27 rehearing petition, No. 25-5320 (none found as of October 31)" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359/gov.uscourts.cadc.42359.1208862862.0.pdf", "case": "cadc-25-5320", "date": null, "label": "Mandate issues seven days after the rehearing petition is decided (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "Expedited removal is a fast way to deport people without a hearing before an immigration judge. Since January 2025, the government says it can use it anywhere in the U.S. against people who weren't admitted or paroled and can't prove they've lived here for two straight years. Before, it was mostly used near the border. A court paused the policy in August 2025. In June 2026 an appeals court said the pause should end, and since July 17, 2026 the policy has been in effect. The group that sued has asked the full appeals court to look at the case again. This expansion does not cover someone who establishes, to the immigration officer's satisfaction, continuous physical presence in the United States throughout the two years immediately before the inadmissibility determination. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/expedited-removal-expansion/", "cases": [ "cadc-25-5320-make-the-road-new-york-v-mullin" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-07-17", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "In effect nationwide since July 17, 2026", "reason": "D.C. Circuit stayed the district court's § 705 stay in its entirety pending issuance of the mandate.", "basis_url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71275483/make-the-road-new-york-v-kristi-noem/" }, { "as_of": "2026-06-23", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Stay vacated on appeal; mandate withheld", "reason": "The merits panel vacated the § 705 stay, but the mandate was withheld pending any rehearing petition.", "basis_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5320-2179963.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2025-11-22", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Stay left in place except credible-fear changes", "reason": "D.C. Circuit motions panel denied a stay pending appeal except as to required changes to credible-fear procedures.", "basis_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/11/25-5320CHSN.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2025-08-29", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "Stayed nationwide by the district court", "reason": "D.D.C. postponed and stayed the January 2025 designation and the Huffman memorandum under 5 U.S.C. § 705.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276674/gov.uscourts.dcd.276674.65.0.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "third-country-removals", "title": "Removals to third countries not named in removal orders", "topic": "removal", "summary": "Since early 2025, DHS has removed people with final removal orders to countries other than those designated in their orders, under a March 30, 2025 DHS memorandum (\"Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals\") and a July 9, 2025 ICE memorandum. A certified class challenges the policy in D.V.D. v. DHS in the District of Massachusetts, arguing that removal without meaningful notice and a chance to raise fear-based claims violates the INA, the Convention Against Torture's implementing law and due process. The district court set the policy aside in February 2026 and the First Circuit largely affirmed, but the Supreme Court stayed that judgment and will hear the case. Individual detainees have also sought stays of particular third-country removals in other circuits.", "status_code": "in_effect", "status_headline": "In effect; Supreme Court review pending", "status_subhead": "Argument set for December 9, 2026 in DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426", "status_detail": "On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the District of Massachusetts's February 25, 2026 order and judgment in D.V.D., which had set aside DHS's third-country removal guidance and declared that class members are entitled to meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise country-specific claims first. The stay lasts until the Court sends down its judgment, so no court order currently stops removals under the guidance. The Court granted review and set argument for December 9, 2026.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092926zr2_1a7d.pdf", "date": "2026-09-29", "court": "scotus", "label": "Order list: stay granted and certiorari granted, No. 26-426 (26A406)", "docket_number": "26-426" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html", "date": "2026-10-01", "court": "scotus", "label": "Docket: argument set for December 9, 2026", "docket_number": "26-426" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.241.0_1.pdf", "date": "2026-02-25", "court": "mad", "label": "Memorandum and order on motion to dismiss and partial summary judgment, ECF 241", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-10676" } ], "coverage": [ { "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "kind": "class", "text": "No currently enforceable relief under this stayed judgment. The D.V.D. class was certified on April 18, 2025. The February 25, 2026 judgment's declarations run to this class, and it set aside the guidance itself; the Supreme Court stayed that judgment on September 29, 2026. The stay doesn't affect other protections a class member may have. The class doesn't include people removed under expedited removal orders (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)).", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092926zr2_1a7d.pdf", "operative": false, "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0.pdf", "class_definition": "All individuals who have a final removal order issued in proceedings under Section 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b) of the INA (including withholding-only proceedings) whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after February 18, 2025, to a country (a) not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and (b) not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed." } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.241.0_1.pdf", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": "2026-02-25", "note": "Set aside the March and July 2025 guidance; classwide declarations on notice and a chance to raise fear claims. Stayed by the Supreme Court.", "place": "mad", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1212P-01A.pdf", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": "2026-09-18", "note": "Affirmed except two country-sequencing declarations, vacated for lack of standing. Review granted, No. 26-426.", "place": "ca1", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-10925-CV0.pdf", "case": "ca5-26-10925", "date": "2026-10-10", "note": "Published order denying stays of removal to Sierra Leone. The Fifth Circuit held § 1252(g) bars the stay motion and, in its own reading of the Supreme Court's D.V.D. stay, found no likely success. Not a ruling on the guidance.", "place": "ca5", "stage": "stay", "ruling": "Emergency stay denied", "position": "for_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "The policy at issue is DHS's March 30, 2025 memorandum, \"Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals,\" and ICE's July 9, 2025 memorandum on third-country removals after the Supreme Court's June 23, 2025 stay. The February 25, 2026 judgment declared that policy unlawful and set it aside, and dissolved the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction. That judgment is now stayed.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.241.0_1.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092926zr2_1a7d.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The Supreme Court directed briefing on four questions: whether the district court had jurisdiction; whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) allowed classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur; whether the guidance is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its regulations; and other questions the government finds appropriate. The government's brief and the joint appendix were filed October 23, 2026.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092926zr2_1a7d.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html" ] }, { "text": "Class scope: final orders from INA § 240 proceedings, reinstatement under § 241(a)(5), or administrative removal under § 238(b), including withholding-only proceedings, for people removed on or after February 18, 2025 to a country not designated or identified in writing in their proceedings. The February 2026 opinion notes the class excludes expedited removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.241.0_1.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Two published appellate orders denied individual stays after the Supreme Court's September 29 stay. The Fifth Circuit held in a published order that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred it from entertaining a motion to stay a third-country removal (Gakou, Oct. 10, 2026). The Sixth Circuit denied an emergency stay of removal to Ghana in a published order, relying on the D.V.D. stay (Ojukwu, No. 26-3891, Oct. 9, 2026).", "urls": [ "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-10925-CV0.pdf", "https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0282p-06.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Earlier stays: the Supreme Court stayed the April 18, 2025 classwide preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025 (No. 24A1153) and granted the government's motion to clarify on July 3, 2025. The First Circuit stayed the February 2026 judgment pending appeal on March 16, 2026, then decided the appeal on September 18, 2026.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.53896/gov.uscourts.ca1.53896.00108417272.0.pdf", "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1212P-01A.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": "2026-11-16", "label": "Respondents' merits brief due, No. 26-426" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": "2026-12-01", "label": "Government's reply brief due by 2 p.m., No. 26-426" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": "2026-12-09", "label": "Supreme Court argument, DHS v. D.V.D., No. 26-426" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html", "case": "mad-1-25-cv-10676", "date": null, "label": "Supreme Court decision in No. 26-426 (not yet set)" } ], "plain_en": "Some people with deportation orders are being sent to countries that aren't named in their orders. These are called third countries. A group of people sued in Massachusetts on behalf of everyone in this situation. They say the government must warn people first and give them a real chance to say they'd be harmed in that country. A judge agreed in February 2026, and an appeals court mostly agreed in September 2026. But on September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court put that ruling on hold. That means the government can keep doing these removals for now. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on December 9, 2026 and decide the case later. If you have a removal order and are worried about being sent to another country, an immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/third-country-removals/", "cases": [ "mad-1-25-cv-10676-d-v-d-v-u-s-department-of-homeland-security", "ca5-26-10925-abasse-gakou-v-warden-of-the-prairieland-detention-center" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-09-29", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "In effect; Supreme Court review pending", "reason": "After the First Circuit largely affirmed, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment and granted certiorari (No. 26-426).", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092926zr2_1a7d.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2026-03-16", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "First Circuit stayed judgment pending appeal", "reason": "A divided panel stayed the February 25, 2026 judgment that set aside the guidance.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.53896/gov.uscourts.ca1.53896.00108417272.0.pdf" }, { "as_of": "2025-06-23", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "Supreme Court stayed classwide injunction", "reason": "The Court stayed the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction pending appeal and any certiorari petition (No. 24A1153).", "basis_url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html" } ] }, { "slug": "courthouse-arrests", "title": "ICE civil arrests at immigration courts and state courthouses", "topic": "enforcement_arrests", "summary": "In January and May 2025, ICE replaced its 2021 limits on civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses with guidance that widened when officers may make them (ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4), and EOIR adopted a related immigration-court policy (OPPM 25-06). Two immigrant-service organizations challenged the ICE guidance in New York, and noncitizens with hearings at San Francisco-area immigration courts challenged it in Northern California. On October 15, 2026, California sued over ICE arrests at its state courthouses, which it says have continued under a directive used since the 2025 guidance was vacated.", "status_code": "blocked", "status_headline": "2025 courthouse-arrest policies set aside", "status_subhead": "Some courthouse arrests are still allowed; the government has appealed", "status_detail": "On June 23, 2026, the Northern District of California vacated ICE's January and May 2025 courthouse-arrest guidance and EOIR's related policy, and on July 10 denied a stay pending appeal. On September 30, the Southern District of New York separately vacated the ICE guidance as applied to immigration courts. Vacatur doesn't bar every courthouse arrest: earlier guidance allowing them in defined circumstances applies again. California alleges ICE arrests at its state courthouses have continued under a later directive; no court has ruled on that.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.205.0.pdf", "date": "2026-06-23", "court": "cand", "label": "Order on class certification and summary judgment vacating the courthouse-arrest policies (Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, ECF 205)", "docket_number": "5:25-cv-06487" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.212.0.pdf", "date": "2026-06-30", "court": "cand", "label": "Rule 54(b) judgment on the APA claims (ECF 212)", "docket_number": "5:25-cv-06487" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.213.0.pdf", "date": "2026-07-02", "court": "cand", "label": "Defendants' notice of appeal from the Rule 54(b) judgment (ECF 213)", "docket_number": "5:25-cv-06487" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.217.0.pdf", "date": "2026-07-10", "court": "cand", "label": "Order denying stay pending appeal (ECF 217)", "docket_number": "5:25-cv-06487" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.110.0.pdf", "date": "2026-09-30", "court": "nysd", "label": "Opinion and order granting partial summary judgment and limited vacatur (ECF 110)", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-06366" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.111.0.pdf", "date": "2026-09-30", "court": "nysd", "label": "Judgment (ECF 111)", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-06366" } ], "coverage": [ { "case": "cand-5-25-cv-06487", "kind": "everywhere", "text": "The Northern District of California vacated ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4 (the January and May 2025 courthouse guidance) and EOIR OPPM 25-06 under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court declined the government's request to limit relief to the certified classes, reasoning that the policies apply nationwide by their own terms. The same judgment vacated ICE's June 24, 2025 nationwide waiver of the 12-hour limit on hold-room detention.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.212.0.pdf" }, { "case": "nysd-1-25-cv-06366", "kind": "everywhere", "text": "The Southern District of New York vacated and set aside the January 2025 Interim Guidance and the May 2025 Final Guidance \"to the extent they purport to rescind the April 2021 Guidance as applied to civil enforcement actions in or near immigration courts.\" The court rejected the government's request to limit the vacatur to the plaintiffs. For arrests at or near immigration courts, the court said ICE's policy reverts to the April 27, 2021 guidance.", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.111.0.pdf" } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.205.0.pdf", "case": "cand-5-25-cv-06487", "date": "2026-06-23", "note": "Policies arbitrary and capricious; vacated nationwide with the hold-room waiver. Stay pending appeal denied July 10; appeal No. 26-4310 pending.", "place": "cand", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.110.0.pdf", "case": "nysd-1-25-cv-06366", "date": "2026-09-30", "note": "Arbitrary and capricious as to immigration courts; vacated in part. Rejected the claim that the INA incorporates a common-law bar on courthouse arrests.", "place": "nysd", "position": "against_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "The New York court relied on the government's March 2026 acknowledgment that the 2025 ICE guidance doesn't apply to arrests in or near immigration courts. It held that ICE's policy for those arrests therefore reverts to the April 27, 2021 guidance, which permitted them only in limited circumstances, and that the 2025 guidance's attempt to rescind the 2021 guidance for immigration courts was arbitrary and capricious.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.110.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Pablo Sequen v. Albarran (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06487) is also a class action. Its courthouse-arrest class is \"[a]ll persons who have an immigration court hearing in a proceeding on EOIR's non-detained docket in an immigration courthouse in ICE's San Francisco Area of Responsibility,\" but the vacatur isn't limited to that class. The court entered a Rule 54(b) judgment June 30, 2026; the government appealed July 2 (Ninth Circuit No. 26-4310), and the court denied a stay pending appeal July 10. California's October 15 complaint describes the government's Ninth Circuit stay motion as pending.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.212.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.213.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.215.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.217.0.pdf", "https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/complaintcaliforniavice.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.225.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.230.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "In the New York case, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on Count I and for the government on Count II, and dismissed Counts III to V as moot after EOIR withdrew its policy on dismissing removal cases by oral motion. The plaintiffs' October 14 letter says judgment was entered on the docket on October 5 and treats the government's time to appeal as still open. No notice of appeal was found in the public record checked.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.110.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.111.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.112.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "California's complaint (C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-12026) alleges violations of the APA and the Tenth Amendment and asks the court to vacate what it calls ICE's Courthouse Enforcement Directive (the May 2025 directive, the 2021 directive and the directive used since the vacatur) and to enjoin civil immigration arrests at California courts. These are requests; no ruling has been found.", "urls": [ "https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/complaintcaliforniavice.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Both vacatur rulings treat vacatur under 5 U.S.C. 706 as a remedy that Trump v. CASA (2025) didn't address, since CASA concerned universal injunctions. Each court said it was following its own circuit's precedent that vacatur is the normal APA remedy.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.205.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.110.0.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.215.0.pdf", "case": "cand-5-25-cv-06487", "date": null, "label": "Ninth Circuit ruling on the government's appeal and stay motion in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, No. 26-4310" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.111.0.pdf", "case": "nysd-1-25-cv-06366", "date": null, "label": "Government's 60-day time to appeal the S.D.N.Y. judgment (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B))" }, { "url": "https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/complaintcaliforniavice.pdf", "case": "cacd-2-26-cv-12026", "date": null, "label": "First ruling on California's requests for vacatur and an injunction; no hearing set" } ], "plain_en": "In 2025, ICE told its officers they could make more immigration arrests in and around courthouses. Courts have since set those 2025 rules aside, though that doesn't ban every courthouse arrest. In June 2026, a federal court in California canceled ICE's 2025 courthouse-arrest rules, and a matching immigration-court policy, for the whole country. In September 2026, a federal court in New York also canceled them for immigration courts and said ICE's older 2021 rules, which allowed these arrests only in limited situations, apply there again. The government is appealing the California ruling. California claims ICE is still arresting people at its state courthouses and has sued to stop it. No judge has ruled on that yet. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/courthouse-arrests/", "cases": [ "cand-5-25-cv-06487-carmen-aracely-pablo-sequen-v-sergio-albarran", "nysd-1-25-cv-06366-african-communities-together-and-the-door-v-david-j-venturella", "cacd-2-26-cv-12026-state-of-california-v-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-06-23", "status_code": "blocked", "headline": "2025 courthouse-arrest policies set aside", "reason": "Northern District of California vacated ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4 and EOIR OPPM 25-06", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.453807/gov.uscourts.cand.453807.205.0.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "asylum-shutdown-border", "title": "Proclamation 10888: asylum shutdown and summary removals at the southern border", "topic": "border", "summary": "Proclamation 10888 (January 20, 2025) declared an invasion at the southern border and suspended entry for people who cross between ports of entry or without required documents. DHS guidance implementing it barred those people from applying for asylum and subjected them to new summary removal procedures outside the INA, without the withholding-of-removal and Convention Against Torture procedures the statute and regulations require. Three legal-services organizations (RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Project) and 13 individuals brought a class action in the District of Columbia. The government's petition, Mullin v. RAICES, No. 26-239, is pending in the Supreme Court.", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "status_headline": "Asylum bar in effect; summary removals blocked", "status_subhead": "Supreme Court considers the government's petition at its Nov. 6 conference", "status_detail": "The district court held the proclamation and guidance unlawful and certified a class of people subject to them, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed. Under the D.C. Circuit's August 1, 2025 partial stay, still in place because that court stayed its mandate pending certiorari, the government may still refuse asylum applications. It may not remove class members through the extra-statutory summary procedures or without the withholding and CAT procedures the law requires. The Supreme Court will consider the petition at its November 6, 2026 conference.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/08/25-5243LDSN4.pdf", "date": "2025-08-01", "court": "cadc", "label": "Order granting in part and denying in part a stay pending appeal", "docket_number": "25-5243" }, { "url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf", "date": "2026-04-24", "court": "cadc", "label": "Opinion affirming summary judgment and class certification", "docket_number": "25-5243" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-239.html", "date": "2026-10-07", "court": "scotus", "label": "Supreme Court docket, Mullin v. RAICES (distributed for November 6 conference)", "docket_number": "26-239" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039.71.0.pdf", "date": "2025-07-02", "court": "dcd", "label": "Memorandum opinion granting summary judgment and certifying a class (ECF 71)", "docket_number": "1:25-cv-00306" } ], "coverage": [ { "case": "cadc-25-5243", "kind": "class", "text": "On July 2, 2025 the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of everyone who is or will be subject to the proclamation and present in the United States. The D.C. Circuit's August 1, 2025 stay order clarified that the class currently covers only the people in the quoted definition, and the merits panel affirmed certification as clarified. Class members are protected by the unstayed parts of the injunction: no removal through the extra-statutory procedures and no removal without the withholding-of-removal and CAT procedures the statute and regulations require.", "basis_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf", "definition_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/08/25-5243LDSN4.pdf", "class_definition": "all individuals who (1) are present in the United States while Proclamation 10888 and/or its implementation is in effect, (2) are not statutorily ineligible for all forms of relief from removal listed in point (3), and (3) absent the Proclamation and/or its implementing guidance, would seek asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), or withholding under the Convention Against Torture, see Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note).", "definition_label": "Operative class definition (appellate order)" }, { "kind": "everywhere", "text": "The district court also vacated the implementing guidance under 5 U.S.C. 706 to the extent it replaces statutory removal with extra-statutory summary expulsion procedures. The D.C. Circuit's stay order stayed only the vacatur of the guidance on asylum applications, so the rest of the vacatur is in effect.", "basis_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/08/25-5243LDSN4.pdf" } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039.71.0.pdf", "case": "cadc-25-5243", "date": "2025-07-02", "note": "Summary judgment for plaintiffs: guidance vacated in part, classwide injunction and declaration. The asylum parts were stayed on appeal.", "place": "dcd", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf", "case": "cadc-25-5243", "date": "2026-04-24", "note": "Affirmed; Judge Walker dissented in part on standing, asylum and 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1). Rehearing en banc denied July 23, 2026. Cert petition No. 26-239.", "place": "cadc", "position": "against_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "The D.C. Circuit's August 1, 2025 order stayed the district court's rulings on asylum applications: the vacatur of the guidance on asylum, the injunction against removing class members without complying with the asylum statute, and the declaration about asylum. It denied a stay in all other respects. Both sides' Supreme Court briefs say the D.C. Circuit later stayed its mandate pending certiorari, so that partial stay continues.", "urls": [ "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/08/25-5243LDSN4.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-239/419860/20260824104858426_Mullin_v_RAICES_petition_final.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-239/425317/20260923112540914_Brief%20in%20Opposition-PDFA.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The D.C. Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1) don't authorize removals outside the INA's procedures, that the proclamation can't suspend the statutory right to apply for asylum or deny access to withholding of removal, and that it can't curtail the mandatory CAT procedures. It held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) doesn't apply to vacatur and doesn't bar the classwide injunction here.", "urls": [ "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5243-2170245.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The government's petition presents three questions: whether the proclamation and guidance are lawful, whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) bars the classwide relief, and whether the class definition satisfies Article III and Rule 23. The respondents opposed on September 23, 2026, and the government replied on October 6.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-239.html", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-239/419860/20260824104858426_Mullin_v_RAICES_petition_final.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The district court deferred deciding whether it can and should grant relief to plaintiffs and putative class members who are no longer in the United States, and directed the parties to propose a briefing schedule on that question.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039/gov.uscourts.dcd.277039.71.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "A separate USCIS interim final rule, Affirmative Asylum Referrals Without Interview (91 Fed. Reg. 47101, July 28, 2026), concerns affirmative asylum applicants inside the country, not the border proclamation. It's challenged in Immigration Equality v. Mullin, D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-02921, where the plaintiffs' motion for a stay under 5 U.S.C. 705 hadn't been decided as of October 29, 2026.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295723/gov.uscourts.dcd.295723.1.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295723/gov.uscourts.dcd.295723.23.0_1.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-239.html", "case": "cadc-25-5243", "date": "2026-11-06", "label": "Supreme Court conference on the government's petition, No. 26-239" } ], "plain_en": "In January 2025 the President issued an order closing the southern border to people who cross between official entry points or without papers. Under the government's rules, those people can't apply for asylum and can be sent back quickly, without the usual immigration court process. Federal courts in Washington, D.C., ruled that this is illegal and protected a large group of affected people in a class action. For now, part of that ruling is on hold, so the government can still refuse asylum applications. But it can't use its fast-track removal process, and it can't skip the steps that protect people from being sent to a country where they would be persecuted or tortured. The Supreme Court is set to consider whether to take the case on November 6, 2026. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/asylum-shutdown-border/", "cases": [ "cadc-25-5243-refugee-and-immigrant-center-for-education-and-legal-services-v-noem" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2025-08-01", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "headline": "Asylum bar in effect; summary removals blocked", "reason": "D.C. Circuit stayed the asylum parts of the district court's order pending appeal and denied a stay of the rest", "basis_url": "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/08/25-5243LDSN4.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "refugee-admissions", "title": "Suspension of refugee admissions and processing", "topic": "asylum_refugees", "summary": "Executive Order 14163 (January 20, 2025) suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including the admission of approved refugees and decisions on refugee applications, leaving entry to case-by-case exceptions. The State Department then suspended and terminated program funding, including cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies. Refugees, U.S. residents petitioning for family members, and the resettlement agencies HIAS, Church World Service and Lutheran Community Services Northwest challenge the order and the funding cuts in Pacito v. Trump, a class action in the Western District of Washington.", "status_code": "in_effect", "status_headline": "Admissions suspension in effect", "status_subhead": "Order restoring resettlement services for admitted refugees still stands", "status_detail": "On March 5, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed against the suspension of refugee admissions and processing and the defunding of overseas operations, and reversed those parts of the preliminary injunctions. It affirmed them only as they require the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements needed to provide resettlement services to refugees already admitted. The case continues in the district court on an amended complaint.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf", "date": "2026-03-05", "court": "ca9", "label": "Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the preliminary injunctions", "docket_number": "25-1939" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.148.0.pdf", "date": "2025-07-30", "court": "wawd", "label": "Class-certification order (ECF 148)", "docket_number": "2:25-cv-00255" } ], "coverage": [ { "case": "ca9-25-1939", "kind": "class", "text": "The Reception & Placement Subclass, certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The only relief the Ninth Circuit left in place requires the government to reinstate the cooperative agreements needed to provide the resettlement services described in 8 U.S.C. 1522 to refugees admitted to the United States; the court said the government may end particular agreements once another mechanism provides those services. The relief the other two subclasses won against the admissions and processing suspension was reversed.", "basis_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf", "definition_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.148.0.pdf", "class_definition": "all refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa holders resettled to the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement as of January 20, 2025, the issuance date of the Refugee Ban Executive Order, or who currently are, or will be, resettled in the United States and within their first ninety days post-resettlement" } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-1939", "date": "2026-03-05", "note": "Challenges to the admissions and processing suspension unlikely to succeed (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)); ending domestic resettlement agreements likely unlawful. Judge Lee dissented in part.", "place": "ca9", "stage": "preliminary", "ruling": "Preliminary-injunction appeal: affirmed in part, reversed in part", "position": "mixed" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs hadn't shown they're likely to succeed on claims that Executive Order 14163 exceeds the President's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and the Refugee Act, including its suspension of decisions on refugee applications, or that defunding overseas processing was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal concerned preliminary injunctions, so these are likelihood-of-success rulings, not a final judgment.", "urls": [ "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The court held that ending the cooperative agreements for domestic resettlement services was likely contrary to law (8 U.S.C. 1522) and arbitrary and capricious, and rejected the government's Tucker Act and unreviewability arguments. It said the government may end the agreements once it has another way to provide the 1522 services. It also held the injunctions comply with Trump v. CASA because the district court had certified a class. Judge Lee dissented on jurisdiction and the funding merits.", "urls": [ "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf" ] }, { "text": "On August 3, 2026, the district court replaced fixed dates with a schedule that runs from the later of its ruling on the government's protective-order motion or the government's answer to the first amended complaint; bench trial begins 306 days after that date. The court denied the protective-order motion on August 4. A government motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a second motion to stay discovery (filed August 21) were pending in the latest filings reviewed.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.218.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.219.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.221.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.224.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "According to the government's August 11 reply brief, the amended complaint adds claims about case-by-case exception decisions, implementation of the fiscal year 2026 refugee Presidential Determination, and the application of Proclamation 10949 to refugees. That is the government's description of the claims.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.220.0.pdf" ] }, { "text": "Separate USCIS actions affecting refugees already in the United States (an adjustment hold, re-vetting, and an October 14, 2026 rule shortening the time to answer a notice of intent to terminate refugee status) are challenged in Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans v. Edlow, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14817. A ten-day administrative stay of that rule and of certain notices runs through November 6, 2026.", "urls": [ "https://e1.nmcdn.io/assets/irap/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ECF-024-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Stay.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.220.0.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-1939", "date": null, "label": "Ruling on the government's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495/gov.uscourts.wawd.344495.218.0.pdf", "case": "ca9-25-1939", "date": null, "label": "Bench trial, 306 days after the later of the protective-order ruling or the government's answer; calendar date not yet fixed" } ], "plain_en": "In January 2025 the President paused the U.S. refugee program. Refugees waiting abroad, even people who were already approved, generally can't come to the United States, and most refugee applications aren't being decided. In March 2026 a federal appeals court said the President likely has the power to do this, so the pause stays in place for now. The same court said the government must restore the agreements that pay for basic resettlement help for refugees who have already arrived, unless it finds another way to provide that help. The lawsuit continues in a federal court in Seattle. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you or your family.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/refugee-admissions/", "cases": [ "ca9-25-1939-pacito-v-trump" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2025-09-12", "status_code": "in_effect", "headline": "Admissions suspension in effect", "reason": "Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunctions pending appeal except the domestic resettlement relief; it affirmed that split on March 5, 2026", "basis_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/05/25-1939.pdf" } ] }, { "slug": "state-immigration-crime-laws", "title": "State immigration-crime laws: Texas S.B. 4 and Iowa S.F. 2340", "topic": "state_laws", "summary": "Texas S.B. 4 (2023) and Iowa S.F. 2340 (2024) make it a state crime to be in the state after a prior removal or denial of admission, and Texas also makes it a crime to enter from another country away from a port of entry. Both let state judges order people to leave the country and bar courts from pausing prosecutions while federal immigration cases are pending. Noncitizens, immigrant-rights organizations and El Paso County challenge them as preempted by federal law; the United States sued too but dropped both suits in 2025. This page tracks the Texas and Iowa laws.", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "status_headline": "In force in Texas; Iowa injunction affirmed", "status_subhead": "Iowa's certiorari petition pending; U.S. views requested", "status_detail": "No court order now stops Texas from enforcing S.B. 4. The en banc Fifth Circuit vacated the first injunction for lack of standing on April 24, 2026, without deciding preemption, and on May 29 a Fifth Circuit panel stayed a new class-action injunction pending appeal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction against Iowa's S.F. 2340 on October 23, 2025, holding the law likely preempted, and left whom it binds and protects to the district court; no ruling on that was found.", "status_as_of": "2026-10-31", "status_basis": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.441.0.pdf", "date": "2026-04-24", "court": "ca5", "label": "En banc opinion vacating the preliminary injunction (Texas S.B. 4)", "docket_number": "24-50149" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf", "date": "2026-05-29", "court": "ca5", "label": "Order staying the L.M.L. preliminary injunction pending appeal (Texas S.B. 4)", "docket_number": "26-50418" }, { "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/242263P.pdf", "date": "2025-10-23", "court": "ca8", "label": "Opinion affirming the preliminary injunction (Iowa S.F. 2340)", "docket_number": "24-2263" }, { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf", "date": "2026-10-19", "court": "scotus", "label": "Order list inviting the Solicitor General's views (Iowa S.F. 2340)", "docket_number": "26-49" } ], "coverage": [ { "kind": "states", "text": "Texas: no court order currently stops S.B. 4. The 2024 preliminary injunction in United States v. Texas was vacated on April 24, 2026. The May 14, 2026 injunction in L.M.L. v. Martin barred enforcement of Penal Code 51.03 and 51.04 and Code of Criminal Procedure articles 5B.002 and 5B.003 for the named plaintiffs and a provisional class, but the Fifth Circuit stayed it pending appeal on May 29.", "places": [ "TX" ], "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf" }, { "kind": "states", "text": "Iowa injunction affirmed; scope on remand not verified. The district court ordered that \"Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Senate File 2340 pending further proceedings.\" The defendants in this case are Attorney General Bird and the Polk and Clayton County Attorneys. The Eighth Circuit affirmed but directed the district court to decide whether a narrower injunction is appropriate under Trump v. CASA, including whom it binds and whom it protects. No ruling on that remand was found.", "places": [ "IA" ], "basis_url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/242263P.pdf" } ], "holdings": [ { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.441.0.pdf", "case": "ca5-24-50149", "date": "2026-04-24", "note": "Texas S.B. 4. En banc court vacated the injunction because the organizational and county plaintiffs lacked standing; preemption not decided.", "place": "ca5", "stage": "procedural", "ruling": "Injunction vacated for lack of standing", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663.55.0_1.pdf", "case": "wdtx-1-26-cv-01170", "date": "2026-05-14", "note": "Texas S.B. 4. Enjoined the reentry, refusal-to-comply, return-order and no-abatement provisions for the plaintiffs and a provisional class; stayed May 29.", "place": "wdtx", "stage": "preliminary", "position": "against_policy" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf", "case": "wdtx-1-26-cv-01170", "date": "2026-05-29", "note": "Texas S.B. 4. Unpublished order staying the L.M.L. injunction pending appeal (No. 26-50418), without reasons; Judge Southwick would deny.", "place": "ca5", "stage": "stay", "ruling": "Injunction stayed pending appeal", "position": "for_policy" }, { "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/242263P.pdf", "case": "scotus-26-49", "date": "2025-10-23", "note": "Iowa S.F. 2340. Affirmed the preliminary injunction; law likely preempted; remanded on scope. Cert petition No. 26-49 pending; U.S. views requested.", "place": "ca8", "stage": "preliminary", "position": "against_policy" } ], "practitioner_notes": [ { "text": "Texas S.B. 4 makes it a state crime to enter Texas directly from a foreign nation away from a lawful port of entry (Penal Code 51.02) and to enter, attempt to enter or be found in Texas after a denial of admission or removal (51.03). It lets state judges order people returned to the foreign nation they entered from (Code of Criminal Procedure art. 5B.002), makes refusing to comply a crime (51.04), and bars abating a prosecution for pending federal immigration proceedings (art. 5B.003). The L.M.L. injunction didn't cover the entry crime.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663.55.0_1.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The en banc Fifth Circuit's April 24, 2026 decision rested only on standing; the remaining plaintiffs were two organizations and El Paso County, after the United States dismissed its claims in March 2025. L.M.L. v. Martin was filed on May 4, 2026 by noncitizens directly subject to the law. The Fifth Circuit's May 29 stay order gives no reasons, and the appeal (No. 26-50418) is pending.", "urls": [ "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.441.0.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172905663.55.0_1.pdf", "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf" ] }, { "text": "The Eighth Circuit held that the individual plaintiffs and Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice likely have standing and that S.F. 2340's reentry crime, removal-order provision and no-abatement provision likely conflict with federal immigration law. Rehearing was denied on February 4, 2026.", "urls": [ "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/242263P.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html" ] }, { "text": "Iowa's petition (No. 26-49) asks whether plaintiffs have pre-enforcement standing when the only alleged injury comes from \"declaredly unenforced applications\" of a statute, and whether overlap between state and federal immigration crimes is enough for obstacle preemption on the law's face. On October 19, 2026, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief. The order sets no deadline and doesn't grant review or change the injunction.", "urls": [ "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf", "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-49/415596/20260702131941621_No.%2025-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf" ] } ], "upcoming": [ { "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-49.html", "case": "scotus-26-49", "date": null, "label": "Solicitor General's brief on Iowa's petition, No. 26-49; the Court set no deadline" }, { "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf", "case": "wdtx-1-26-cv-01170", "date": null, "label": "Fifth Circuit decision on the appeal of the L.M.L. injunction, No. 26-50418" }, { "url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/10/242263P.pdf", "case": "scotus-26-49", "date": null, "label": "District court ruling on remand on the scope of the Iowa injunction" } ], "plain_en": "Texas and Iowa passed laws that make it a state crime for some immigrants to be in the state, mainly people who were deported or turned away before and came back. Texas's law also makes it a crime to cross into Texas from another country away from an official border crossing. Under both laws, a state judge can order a person to leave the country. Right now Texas can enforce its law, because an appeals court paused the order that had blocked it. In Iowa, a court order stops the attorney general and two county prosecutors from enforcing the law, and a lower court still has to decide how far that order reaches. Iowa has asked the Supreme Court to take its case. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.", "is_public": true, "url": "https://passimai.com/litigation/issues/state-immigration-crime-laws/", "cases": [ "scotus-26-49-brenna-bird-v-iowa-migrant-movement-for-justice", "wdtx-1-26-cv-01170-l-m-l-v-martin", "ca5-24-50149-united-states-v-texas" ], "history": [ { "as_of": "2026-05-29", "status_code": "partly_blocked", "headline": "In force in Texas; Iowa injunction affirmed", "reason": "Fifth Circuit stayed the L.M.L. injunction of S.B. 4 pending appeal; Iowa's injunction remained in place", "basis_url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230/gov.uscourts.ca5.230230.50.1.pdf" } ] } ]