Legal standing to sue is central to various state challenges to immigration policies. A party can only bring a lawsuit if they can demonstrate sufficient connection and harm from the challenged policy. The U.S. Supreme Court may soon address whether indirect economic harm is sufficient to confer standing, particularly in the context of the DACA
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Reaffirms Federal Courts Lack Authority to Review Visa Denials
In a 6-3 ruling in U.S. Department of State et al v. Munoz et al (Case Number 23-334), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reaffirmed the doctrine of consular nonreviewability ruling against a U.S. citizen’s spouse who argued that the federal government violated her due process rights by denying her Salvadoran spouse an…
Litigation Against OPT, STEM OPT Programs Ends With U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Petition to Review
The U.S. Supreme Court has finally put an end to the litigation that has dogged STEM OPT for years. On October 2, 2023, the Court refused to hear the technology workers’ union’s challenge to the Obama-era program that allows graduates in STEM fields to work in the United States for up to three years.
The…
States Lack Standing to Sue Over Immigration-Enforcement Guidelines, U.S. Supreme Court Rules
Texas did not have standing to challenge the Biden Administration’s policy priorities regarding removal of noncitizens, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. United States v. Texas, No. 22-58 (June 23, 2023).
In February 2021, recognizing that, of the more than 11 million removable noncitizens in the United States, the majority have become contributing…
WashTech Says OPT, STEM OPT Programs Invalid, Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Step In
An alliance of U.S. technical workers has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to find the OPT and STEM OPT programs invalid.
Since 2014, WashTech has been challenging the validity of OPT and STEM OPT through litigation. The alliance’s major concern is the allegation that the programs harm U.S. workers. Questions about the validity of these…
Coalition of States Files Motion to Shutter DACA Program
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy continues to be under attack. In Judge Andrew Hanen’s court in the Southern District of Texas, a coalition of Republican states filed a motion for summary judgment in a long-pending case alleging that the Biden Administration’s new DACA rule is no more valid than the original DACA…
New DACA Rule Reflects Court’s Limitations
The new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) final rule is in effect – to the extent permitted by court orders.
DACA allows temporary protection from deportation for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16. There are approximately 600,000 immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” who are protected by DACA.
The…
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Court Review in Deportation Case
Federal courts could not review the U.S. Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal – even in a case where the alien contends that the decision was based on a factual error, the U.S. Supreme Court has held, 5-4, affirming the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Patel v.
Judge Again Finds DACA Program Illegal, Blocks New Applications, Allows Renewals
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program (DACA) is not legal, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen has ruled in State of Texas et al. v. U.S. et al.
Judge Hanen issued an injunction preventing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from accepting new DACA applications. However, recognizing the substantial reliance interests involved, he allowed…
Supreme Court Rules on Noncitizens Granted Temporary Protected Status
In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. ____(June 7, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split on whether a grant for temporary protected status (TPS) authorizes eligible noncitizens to adjust status to lawful permanent resident even if they entered the United States unlawfully – the Court held that it does not.
Previously, courts…