Jane Porter, IndyWeek, Feb. 7, 2025 "A man who identified himself as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent confronted two attorneys in the hallway of the third floor of the Wake...
Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box, Feb. 11, 2025 "Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which we analyzed in a previous blog , has now been temporarily enjoined and...
Monique Merrill, CNS, Feb. 10, 2025 "A coalition of refugees and agencies serving refugees are challenging President Donald Trump's executive order indefinitely pausing a refugee resettlement...
Georgetown Law, Feb. 11, 2025 "Today, the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of over two dozen Christian and Jewish religious...
Perez Parra et al. v. Dora Castro "It is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation...
Miriam Jordan, New York Times, Mar. 4, 2020
"While insisting that a policy that has forced 60,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico violates United States law, a federal appeals court on Wednesday granted the Trump administration’s request to keep the “Remain in Mexico” restrictions in effect until March 11 for review by the Supreme Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its decision last week that the policy violates both United States and international law, stating that the policy is causing “extreme and irreversible harm.” However, the court temporarily stayed its injunction against enforcing the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols after the government warned that the order could prompt thousands of migrants to try to enter the country and overwhelm the southwestern border. If the Supreme Court does not grant the government’s request to take up its appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction, the appeals court’s original decision will take effect on March 12, although only in the border states within its jurisdiction, California and Arizona. If the high court agrees to hear the case and grant another emergency stay, the policy, which has been in effect since January 2019, could remain in place for the foreseeable future. “It is very likely that the Supreme Court will grant the administration’s request to halt the Ninth Circuit’s original decision to suspend the policy,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration professor at Cornell Law School."