Federal Courts/Jurisdiction
Ashcroft v. Abbasi (formerly Turkman v. Ashcroft) – U.S. Supreme Court
The Council, along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), is seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens for abuse of authority by immigration agents. In actions brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the government routinely moves to dismiss these cases on a variety of jurisdictional grounds, including by arguing that INA § 242(g) bars the court’s review of damages claims in any case involving removal procedures, and that a remedy under Bivens is not available in immigration-related actions. In essence, the government is attempting to deprive those who have been harmed by immigration agents of any remedy in federal court. Read More
Avalos-Palma v. United States – District Court for the District of New Jersey
The American Immigration Council and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) are seeking to preserve federal court review of damages actions brought by noncitizens for abuse of authority by immigration agents. Read More
Mata v. Lynch – Supreme Court
By statute, noncitizens who have been ordered removed have the right to file one motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). In most cases, these statutory motions to reopen are subject to strict filing deadlines. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (b)(5)(C)(i). However, as nine courts of appeals have recognized, the deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, a long-recognized principle through which courts can waive the application of certain non-jurisdictional statutes of limitations where a plaintiff was diligent but nonetheless unable to comply with the filing deadline. Several courts have also recognized that the numerical limitation on motions to reopen is subject to tolling. The Council continues to advocate in the remaining courts of appeals for recognition that that the motion to reopen deadlines are subject to equitable tolling and, with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild (NIPNLG), has filed amicus briefs in the Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. Read More
Practice Advisory on Supreme Court’s Favorable Decision in Vartelas v. Holder
Washington, D.C.—Last week, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Vartelas v. Holder, holding that the Fleuti doctrine still applies to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with pre-IIRIRA convictions. This means that LPRs with convictions before April 1, 1997 who travel abroad do not, upon their return, face inadmissibility if their… Read More
Texas and Other 25 States File Misleading Brief at Supreme Court
This week, Texas and the 25 other states challenging the President’s executive actions on immigration filed their brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas. The brief attempts to defend the Fifth Circuit’s decision to block expanded DACA and DAPA from being implemented, but instead makes entirely… Read More
Hundreds of Groups Weigh in on Immigration Case Headed to Supreme Court
A diverse coalition of 326 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in United States v. Texas, urging the court to lift the injunction that has blocked the deferred action initiatives that President Obama announced in November 2014. Read More
Obama Administration Files Brief in Immigration Case at Supreme Court
This week, the Obama Administration filed its brief with the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, the case where Texas and 25 other states are challenging the President’s executive action on expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent… Read More
What Does Justice Scalia’s Death Mean for United States v. Texas, the DAPA/DACA Case?
Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away at the age of 79. The unexpected death of the then longest serving member on the Court means there is a vacancy on the nine-member bench. But, it is unlikely that the Senate will confirm another Supreme Court… Read More
What’s Next in the Supreme Court Case on Expanded DACA and DAPA?
This week, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments in United States v. Texas. The highest court will now determine whether the President’s deferred action initiatives announced in November 2014, known as expanded DACA and DAPA, constitute a lawful exercise of executive discretion. The Supreme Court’s… Read More
Supreme Court Will Review DACA/DAPA Case
Today, the Supreme Court decided to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the Texas lawsuit that blocks implementation of President Obama’s 2014 deferred action initiatives—DAPA and expanded DACA. The Court is likely to hear oral arguments in April 2016. We can expect a decision by the end of June… Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
