American Immigration Council (Council) and the National Immigration Project, Jan. 17, 2025 "A stay of removal prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from executing a final order of removal...
Texas v. USA "This is the latest chapter in the long-running litigation challenging the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, commonly known as DACA. In 2021, a district court held that...
Matter of Arciniegas-Patino Where parties were properly served with electronic notice of the briefing schedule, a representative’s failure to diligently monitor the inbox, including the spam folder...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/17/2025 "The United States supports the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the residents of Hong Kong. The People's...
Alan Lee, Jan. 16, 2025 "USCIS’s second part of the H-1B proposed regulations, “Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program, and Program Improvements Affecting...
Kansas v. Garcia (5-4)
Majority - "Kansas law makes it a crime to commit “identity theft” or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents—three aliens who are not authorized to work in this country—were convicted under these provisions for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms that they submitted when they obtained employment. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that a provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts the Kansas statutes at issue insofar as they provide a basis for these prosecutions. We reject this reading of the provision in question, as well as respondents’ alternative arguments based on implied preemption. We therefore reverse."
Dissent - "I agree with the majority that nothing in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, expressly preempts Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in the prosecutions at issue here. But I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion about implied preemption. ... I would hold that federal law impliedly preempted Kansas’ criminal laws as they were applied in these cases. Because the majority takes a different view, with respect, I dissent."