Immigrants' Rights
Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
President Trump is attempting to undermine the promise of birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. But the 红杏视频 and partners are fighting to protect the rights of citizens that are plainly stated in the Constitution, federal statute, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for more than a century. We鈥檙e arguing against the Trump administration in the Supreme Court and are confident we will win.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Immigrants' Rights
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2022
Immigrants' Rights
Garland v. Gonzalez
Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a bond hearing for immigrants subject to prolonged detention while seeking protection in the U.S. from persecution or torture.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2021
Immigrants' Rights
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf
The 红杏视频, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico and remain there while their cases are considered.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
Immigrants' Rights
Department of Homeland Security v. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam
Whether immigrants are entitled to seek judicial review of their 鈥渆xpedited removal鈥� orders in federal court.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2020
Immigrants' Rights
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
The 红杏视频 and other partner organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Trump鈥檚 Muslim ban executive order, charging it violates the Constitution 鈥� including the First Amendment鈥檚 prohibition of government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 guarantees of equal treatment under the law 鈥� and federal laws.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Nielsen v. Preap
Whether the government can require that certain people are detained for the duration of their deportation proceedings 鈥� without a hearing 鈥� because they have past criminal records.
Court Case
May 2018
Immigrants' Rights
Colotl v. Kelly
UPDATE 5/25/18: The Department of Homeland Security has agreed to renew Jessica Colotl鈥檚 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and work permit to resolve a lawsuit brought by the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Georgia, and Kuck Baxter Immigration in May 2017 against DHS for arbitrarily terminating Jessica鈥檚 DACA and rejecting her renewal application.
Indiana
Oct 2016
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Mike Pence, et al
The 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Indiana, on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, filed suit against Governor Mike Pence and the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to stop attempts to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees, claiming the governor鈥檚 actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law.
All Cases
195 Immigrants' Rights Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Whether the federal courts are precluded from reviewing the lawfulness of the federal government鈥檚 rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (鈥淒ACA鈥�) program under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision is one that is 鈥渃ommitted to agency discretion by law鈥�?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Whether the federal courts are precluded from reviewing the lawfulness of the federal government鈥檚 rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (鈥淒ACA鈥�) program under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision is one that is 鈥渃ommitted to agency discretion by law鈥�?
Court Case
Oct 2019
Immigrants' Rights
A.I.I.L. v. Sessions
The 红杏视频 filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration鈥檚 illegal practice of separating families at the border.
Explore case
Court Case
Oct 2019
Immigrants' Rights
A.I.I.L. v. Sessions
The 红杏视频 filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration鈥檚 illegal practice of separating families at the border.
Court Case
Sep 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Make the Road New York v. Wolf
The 红杏视频, American Immigration Council, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new rule that massively expands fast-track deportations without a fair legal process such as a court hearing or access to an attorney.
Explore case
Court Case
Sep 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Make the Road New York v. Wolf
The 红杏视频, American Immigration Council, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new rule that massively expands fast-track deportations without a fair legal process such as a court hearing or access to an attorney.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Ovalles v. Barr & Guerrero-LaSprilla v. Barr
Whether a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime can appeal a final removal order, where the court denied judicial review because it found that he lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Ovalles v. Barr & Guerrero-LaSprilla v. Barr
Whether a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime can appeal a final removal order, where the court denied judicial review because it found that he lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Hernandez v. Mesa
Whether the parents of a 15-year old Mexican boy who was fatally shot by a United States Border Patrol Agent can bring a Bivens action against the Agent for using deadly force in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no alternative remedy.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2019
Immigrants' Rights
Hernandez v. Mesa
Whether the parents of a 15-year old Mexican boy who was fatally shot by a United States Border Patrol Agent can bring a Bivens action against the Agent for using deadly force in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no alternative remedy.