On June 24, 2022, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued new guidance in its Policy Manual on inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The new guidance clarifies that...more
On July 20, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) precludes court review of a decision by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to revoke a...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following two decisions: United States v. Cooley, No. 19-1414: When a tribal officer saw a truck parked on the side of a public highway within the Crow...more
THE CHALLENGE: When Jennifer Arguijo was 11 years old, she and her siblings left Honduras to join their mother and stepfather—a US citizen—in the United States. Four years later, she ran away from home to escape her...more
Since my trip to the U.S./Mexico border last summer, the situation for families seeking asylum has only become more challenging, especially in light of the Administration’s new “Remain in Mexico” policy. This week, I am in...more
Key Cases - Establishment Challenge to Presidential Proclamation Subject to Rational Basis Review - In Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the lowest level of constitutional...more
The Supreme Court affirmed President Trump’s authority to ban certain foreign nationals from entering the country, finding that such travel restrictions are justified based on national security concerns....more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court handed President Trump a tremendous victory by rejecting a challenge to the President’s travel ban” or “Muslim ban” in Trump v. Hawaii. The ban, based on Presidential Proclamation 9645,...more
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion of Trump v. Hawaii, the case on the third iteration of President Trump’s travel entry ban. This version of the ban was issued as a presidential proclamation in...more
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the travel ban implemented by the Trump Administration in September 2017. This travel ban was the third permutation after two other travel bans failed to...more
The US Supreme Court issued a decision today upholding the third version of the travel ban established by the Trump administration. This ban, issued via Presidential Proclamation, imposes travel restrictions on citizens of...more
In a big victory for President Trump and for Presidential power to determine who enters the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld President Trump’s third...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) regarding Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, otherwise known as the “Travel Ban.” ...more
In one of its most anticipated cases in decades, a deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding President Trump’s latest “travel ban” today, delivering a key win to the Trump administration and one of its...more
On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the so-called Trump travel ban. Presidential Proclamation 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision has held that President Donald Trump’s Proclamation No. 9645, known as “Travel Ban 3.0,” can stand. Trump, et al. v. Hawaii, et al., No. 17-965 (June 26, 2018). Certain individuals...more
On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, upholding President Trump’s “travel ban,” which restricts admission to the United States for citizens of certain countries. Presidential Proclamation No....more
And it is even more difficult still if the defendant had – and acted in accordance with – a reasonable interpretation of the vague or ambiguous statute, regulation or contract provision. A concurring opinion in a Supreme...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions yesterday - United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2: Federal law enforcement agents obtained a warrant under 18 U.S.C. §2703, requiring Microsoft to...more
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, holding in a 5-4 decision that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “crime of violence” is void for vagueness. The Immigration and...more
The Supreme Court just permitted the president’s latest travel ban – dubbed Travel Ban 3.0 – to be fully implemented while the litigation regarding the policy proceeds through the federal appellate court system. The Court’s...more
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Government Bid To Reinstate Travel Ban - After hearing an emergency oral argument late Tuesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower federal court judge and late today upheld...more
Two Executive Actions held out hope for millions and their would-be employers: they would result in many undocumented workers being able to remain in the US for an additional three years without fear of deportation, and,...more
On June 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Mata v. Lynch, No. 14-185, holding that federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) rejection of an alien’s motion...more