The Supreme Court’s decision in Nielsen v. Preap suggests that future constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention will face formidable obstacles.
Latest in Immigration and Nationality Act
Judge John Tigar’s decision echoes his previous emphasis, and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge Jay Bybee relied on the plain meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act in denying the government’s request to stay a temporary restraining order against new limitations on asylum.
The Temporary Restraining Order Against Trump’s Asylum Ban: Statutory Structure and Agency Discretion
The executive branch does not have the authority to categorically deny asylum applications not submitted at recognized points of entry.
While the Supreme Court rejected statutory arguments against Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the statutory case against the new asylum proclamation is more pointed.
On Thursday, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced an amendment to the rules governing asylum requests rendering ineligible for asylum those who attempt to enter the United States in violation of an order issued under Section 212(f) or 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those statutes give the president certain authorities to restrict the entry of aliens to the United States.
A summary of the October 17, 2017 Maryland District Court preliminary injunction of Trump’s latest travel ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645.
An overview of the legal problems presented by DHS's reported plans to send undocumented nationals from Central American states who enter along the U.S. southern border back to Mexico before giving them a U.S. deportation hearing.
Section 212(f) of the INA has never been used for the purpose of ideological exclusion, but Trump’s immigration E.O. does just that, potentially violating the INA and the Constitution.