Federal Courts/Jurisdiction

Recent Features

All Federal Courts/Jurisdiction Content

Publication Date: 
October 24, 2016
This fact sheet provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe and subsequent efforts by states and localities to avoid compliance with the decision.
Publication Date: 
April 11, 2016
This guide provides brief answers to common questions about United States v. Texas, including what is at stake in the case, how the litigation began, what the contested issues are, and the impact the...
Publication Date: 
June 1, 2013

“Judicial review” refers to federal court review of an immigration agency decision. Some individuals whose immigration benefits applications are denied or who are ordered removed from the United...

Publication Date: 
March 25, 2010
Years before the U.S. Supreme Court ended racial segregation in U.S. schools with Brown v. Board of Education, a federal circuit court in California ruled that segregation of school children...
Publication Date: 
March 28, 2022
In the amicus brief filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Council argues that the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings should apply to evidence related to identity, because it is an essential deterrent to ICE’s widespread racially discriminatory enforcement practices.
This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed to learn more about trends in the Board of Immigration Appeal’s treatment of motions to reconsider orders of removal.
Publication Date: 
September 7, 2021
This amicus brief addresses whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review over eligibility determinations for certain forms of discretionary relief from removal for non citizens.
Publication Date: 
August 18, 2021
This brief highlights the court's many factual errors about MPP in its decision to reinstate the program.
Publication Date: 
May 27, 2021
The amicus brief in Ayom v. Garland urges the eighth circuit to affirm that mandatory detention has constitutional limits, and reject the endorsement of prolonged mandatory detention for people in removal proceedings.
Publication Date: 
August 13, 2020
This amicus brief in Niz-Chavez v. Barr urges the Supreme Court to reject the government’s practice of issuing notice of the time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings in multiple documents over time, instead of in the initial Notice to Appear (NTA), as mandated by Congress.
Publication Date: 
March 1, 2015
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.
Publication Date: 
January 21, 2014
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.
Publication Date: 
October 4, 2013
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.
Publication Date: 
April 16, 2008
The Council filed an amicus brief arguing that the district court had jurisdiction over the denial of an asylee relative petition in a case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. Case settled without a decision from the court.
Last modified: 
January 8, 2024
Publication Date: 
January 8, 2024
The practice alert explains the scope of a class settlement agreement in Padilla v. ICE that provides protections for detained asylum seekers who face prolonged delays before receiving their credible fear interviews.
Last modified: 
January 8, 2024
Publication Date: 
January 8, 2024
This Practice Advisory has information practitioners need to assess whether filing suit in federal court is the right option for challenging an employment-based petition denial.
Last modified: 
November 28, 2023
Publication Date: 
November 28, 2023

This practice advisory describes some of the common tools of statutory construction to assist practitioners in advocating for narrow definitions of generic criminal removal grounds before the...

Last modified: 
August 22, 2023
Publication Date: 
August 22, 2023
This practice advisory looks into the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court issued in Pugin v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1833 (2023). This immigration decision addressed the generic definition of the obstruction of justice aggravated felony ground at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S).
Last modified: 
December 16, 2022
Publication Date: 
December 16, 2022
Practitioners who challenge delays in visa processing often face a motion to dismiss based on the consular nonreviewability doctrine. This practice tip examines the scope of the doctrine. It provides arguments, with supporting documentation, to oppose common situations that the government claims are final, nonreviewable decisions.
Publication Date: 
September 14, 2022
This Practice Advisory addresses who is, or who may be, the proper respondent-defendant and recipient for service of process in immigration-related litigation in district court.
Publication Date: 
October 4, 2021
This Practice Advisory discusses the primary issues involved in a suit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge an unlawful agency action.
Publication Date: 
July 19, 2021
This practice advisory provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens, the benefits and risks of bringing a Bivens claim, and practical and legal information about filing a Bivens claim in federal court.
Publication Date: 
February 19, 2021
This Practice Advisory provides basic information about filing an immigration-related delay action in federal district court under both the Mandamus Act and the APA. It discusses the required elements of a successful mandamus and APA actions as well as jurisdictional concerns that may arise.
Publication Date: 
August 14, 2020
In the immigration context, Equal Access to Justice Act fees generally are available in petitions for review, mandamus actions, Administrative Procedure Act suits, habeas corpus actions, and naturalization actions.
December 15, 2023

Families are complicated. Especially during the holidays, that’s something we can all agree on. But most of us can’t – or will never have to – imagine being forcibly separated from our closest...

August 30, 2023

The Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV) went on trial last week. The trial, held in a federal court in Texas, was the...

July 7, 2023

Written by Kelly Chauvin, Summer 2023 Legal Intern for the American Immigration Council Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a section of immigration law that forbids “encourag[ing] or...

May 24, 2023

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide a case that asks the Court to overturn Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council—an influential decision that requires courts to defer to federal...

May 22, 2023

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled last week that a transgender woman from Guatemala did not need to jump through an additional hoop—filing a new motion with the Board of Immigration...

February 17, 2023

In December 2022, the Supreme Court stepped in to keep Title 42 (the pandemic health policy that has allowed the United States to carry out over 2.5 million expulsions since March 2020) in effect...

November 30, 2022

The Supreme Court will tackle more hot button immigration issues in its 2022 – 2023 term. Front and center is the Biden administration’s effort to set immigration enforcement priorities. But the...

October 7, 2022

Written by Jorge Loweree and Raul Pinto of the American Immigration Council More than a decade after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first created the Deferred Action for Childhood...

June 30, 2022

Almost a year after the Supreme Court allowed a federal judge in Texas to order the Biden administration to restart the so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), the Supreme Court ruled in...

May 13, 2022

Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, could have damaging effects to immigrant rights secured through the courts. The...

October 13, 2023
On October 13, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will hear arguments in Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance v. Mayorkas, a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s unlawful policy of turning back people seeking asylum without a CBP One appointment.
September 8, 2023
On Thursday, the Biden administration proposed to rescind a Trump administration rule that stripped authority from immigration judges to manage their own dockets; here is our response.
July 1, 2023
The Southern Poverty Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and American Immigration Council have announced they will file a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s draconian Senate Bill 1718, which goes into effect, July 1.
September 8, 2022
A federal court approved a settlement agreement in a lawsuit challenging the unlawful detention of unaccompanied children who turn 18 in U.S. government custody and are transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities.
June 30, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court allows the Biden administration’s efforts to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols—an illegal Trump-era policy that sent thousands of people seeking humanitarian protection to dangerous areas of Mexico to await their asylum hearings.
August 19, 2021
A Texas judge blocked the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. The decision was issued in a case challenging ICE’s enforcement activities outside the scope laid out in the Feb. 18 enforcement memo.
August 18, 2021
The Council and partner immigration groups and former immigration judges filed an amicus brief to stop the reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols.
July 16, 2021
U.S. Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas ordered the Biden administration to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
September 14, 2020
A federal court has ruled that the Trump administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status for more than 300,000 people living in the United States can continue.
June 5, 2020
The American Immigration Council has named experienced attorney and litigator Kate Melloy Goettel to be its legal director of litigation.
Last modified: 
January 8, 2024
Publication Date: 
January 8, 2024
The practice alert explains the scope of a class settlement agreement in Padilla v. ICE that provides protections for detained asylum seekers who face prolonged delays before receiving their credible fear interviews.
Last modified: 
January 8, 2024
Publication Date: 
January 8, 2024
This Practice Advisory has information practitioners need to assess whether filing suit in federal court is the right option for challenging an employment-based petition denial.
Last modified: 
November 28, 2023
Publication Date: 
November 28, 2023

This practice advisory describes some of the common tools of statutory construction to assist practitioners in advocating for narrow definitions of generic criminal removal grounds before the...

October 13, 2023
On October 13, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will hear arguments in Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance v. Mayorkas, a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s unlawful policy of turning back people seeking asylum without a CBP One appointment.
September 8, 2023
On Thursday, the Biden administration proposed to rescind a Trump administration rule that stripped authority from immigration judges to manage their own dockets; here is our response.
Last modified: 
August 22, 2023
Publication Date: 
August 22, 2023
This practice advisory looks into the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court issued in Pugin v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1833 (2023). This immigration decision addressed the generic definition of the obstruction of justice aggravated felony ground at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S).
July 1, 2023
The Southern Poverty Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and American Immigration Council have announced they will file a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s draconian Senate Bill 1718, which goes into effect, July 1.
Last modified: 
December 16, 2022
Publication Date: 
December 16, 2022
Practitioners who challenge delays in visa processing often face a motion to dismiss based on the consular nonreviewability doctrine. This practice tip examines the scope of the doctrine. It provides arguments, with supporting documentation, to oppose common situations that the government claims are final, nonreviewable decisions.
September 8, 2022
A federal court approved a settlement agreement in a lawsuit challenging the unlawful detention of unaccompanied children who turn 18 in U.S. government custody and are transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities.
June 30, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court allows the Biden administration’s efforts to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols—an illegal Trump-era policy that sent thousands of people seeking humanitarian protection to dangerous areas of Mexico to await their asylum hearings.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending