Major immigration court cases & legal challenges
From a pending Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship to the June 25, 2026 ruling clearing the way to end Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people, U.S. immigration law is being reshaped one case at a time. This page tracks the major immigration court cases and federal policy challenges that affect people already living in the United States — what each case is, where it stands, who it affects, and the official source. Each case is re-checked against its primary source every day.
This is general information about ongoing litigation, not legal advice. A case’s status can change with a single ruling.
Where each case stands
| Case | Status | Court | Who it affects | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court Trump v. Barbara · No. 25-365 | Decided | U.S. Supreme Court | U.S.-born children whose mother is an unauthorized immigrant, or lawfully present only temporarily, and whose father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident — the class whose automatic birthright citizenship Executive Order 14160 would have denied. The Supreme Court struck the order down, so these children are U.S. citizens at birth, as they were before. | 2026-07-25 |
| TPS termination litigation Mullin v. Doe / Trump v. Miot; National TPS Alliance v. Noem · Nos. 25-1083 & 25-1084 (U.S.); No. 25A326 (U.S.); 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.) | In effect now | U.S. Supreme Court; 9th Circuit; N.D. California | Holders of Temporary Protected Status from countries whose 2025 termination notices were challenged in court — chiefly Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal — and their U.S. employers and U.S.-citizen children. After the June 25, 2026 ruling these terminations are in effect. | 2026-07-25 |
| DACA work permits (Texas case) Texas v. United States (on remand to Judge Hanen) · 1:18-cv-00068 (S.D. Tex.); 5th Cir. No. 23-40653 | Awaiting decision | S.D. Texas (Judge Hanen), on remand from the 5th Circuit | Current DACA recipients' ability to keep renewing deferred action and employment authorization, and the legal validity of DACA work permits — at issue program-wide, with the active injunction currently limited to Texas. | 2026-07-25 |
| In-state tuition for undocumented students U.S. challenges to state tuition-equity laws (8 U.S.C. § 1623) · multiple — e.g., 5th Cir. No. 25-10898 (TX); D. Minn. 0:25-cv-02668; S.D. Ill. 3:25-cv-01691 | In litigation | Multiple U.S. District Courts; 5th, 6th, 8th & 10th Circuits | Undocumented students (and, depending on the state, DACA recipients and some other noncitizens) who qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges. Where laws were struck, affected students lose in-state rates; where cases continue, eligibility holds pending the courts. | 2026-07-25 |
| Immigrant eligibility for public benefits (PRWORA reinterpretation) State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice · 1:25-cv-00345 (D.R.I.) | Partially blocked | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island | Immigrant communities' access to federally funded health and social-service programs that a July 2025 reinterpretation of PRWORA reclassified as 'federal public benefits' requiring a qualified immigration status — including Head Start, Title X family planning, community and migrant health centers, and certain adult-education programs. | 2026-07-25 |
| Immigration appeals (BIA) restructuring Amica Center v. EOIR · 1:26-cv-00696 (D.D.C.); FR rules 2025-06294 & 2026-02326 | Partially blocked | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | Noncitizens in removal proceedings who appeal an immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the legal-services groups that represent them. The 2025 rule cut the Board to 15 members; the 2026 rule tried to make merits review discretionary and shorten the appeal deadline before a court vacated its core parts. | 2026-07-25 |
| Adjustment-of-status discretion memo (PM-602-0199) USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199 · PM-602-0199 | In effect now | USCIS policy — no court challenge docketed | Noncitizens physically in the U.S. seeking a green card through adjustment of status (Form I-485) under INA § 245(a) — especially students, temporary workers, tourists and parolees. The memo tells officers to treat adjustment as administrative grace and weigh the availability of consular processing as a negative factor; it does not change statutory eligibility. | 2026-07-25 |
| Public-charge rule (final — effective Sept. 18, 2026) Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2026 final rule) · FR 2025-20278 (NPRM) → final rule FR 2026-14539; RIN 1615-AD06 | Decided | DHS / USCIS rulemaking — not a court case | Applicants for a green card or admission subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4) — chiefly family-based immigrants adjudicated by USCIS inside the U.S. The final rule (issued July 16, 2026) rescinds the 2022 regulation's limits on which benefits officers may consider, for admissions and I-485 filings on or after September 18, 2026; benefits received before that date are still considered under the 2022 rule. | 2026-07-25 |
| Asylum work-permit (EAD) rule (proposed) Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants (proposed rule) · FR 2026-03595; RIN 1615-AC97 | Awaiting decision | DHS / USCIS rulemaking — not a court case | Asylum applicants (both affirmative cases before USCIS and defensive cases in immigration court) who seek or renew a work permit (the (c)(8) EAD). The proposal would extend the eligibility wait to 365 days, pause new work-permit acceptance during high-backlog periods, and add eligibility limits. | 2026-07-25 |
| CHNV humanitarian parole termination Svitlana Doe v. Noem (CHNV / humanitarian parole termination) · 1:25-cv-10495 (D. Mass.); SCOTUS application 24A1079 (Noem v. Doe) | Partially blocked | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Indira Talwani); U.S. Supreme Court (emergency stay, No. 24A1079); U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | People already in the United States who hold or held humanitarian parole — primarily Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parolees, plus beneficiaries of Family Reunification Parole (FRP), Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), Operation Allies Welcome (OAW), Central American Minors (CAM), and military parole-in-place — whose parole and associated work authorization the federal government moved to terminate categorically. CHNV terminations are currently in effect; FRP terminations are currently enjoined. | 2026-07-25 |
| Alien Enemies Act removals Alien Enemies Act removals — J.G.G. v. Trump / A.A.R.P. v. Trump / W.M.M. v. Trump · J.G.G. — 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.); A.A.R.P./W.M.M. — No. 24A1007 (U.S. Supreme Court) / No. 25-10534 (5th Cir.) / 1:25-cv-59 (N.D. Tex.); Trump v. J.G.G. — No. 24A931 (U.S. Supreme Court) | In litigation | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Chief Judge James Boasberg); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (en banc); U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (en banc); U.S. Supreme Court | Venezuelan nationals physically in the U.S. (largely men in immigration detention) whom the government alleges are Tren de Aragua members and sought to remove summarily under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, plus the group already deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison. The Supreme Court held that anyone facing AEA removal must receive notice and a meaningful chance to seek habeas review before removal. | 2026-07-25 |
| Prolonged immigration detention & bond hearings Genalo v. Black · No. 25-886 | Awaiting decision | U.S. Supreme Court (on certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) | Noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, who are already physically in the United States and held in mandatory ICE custody under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) for prolonged periods (months to years) while their removal proceedings are pending. The case will determine whether such prolonged detention triggers a constitutional right to an individualized bond hearing and, if so, whether the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence; the right currently recognized by the Second Circuit (covering immigration detention in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) is at stake nationwide given a circuit split. | 2026-07-25 |
| Third-country removals D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (third-country removals) · SCOTUS 24A1153; D. Mass. 1:25-cv-10676; 1st Cir. (expedited appeal) | In litigation | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Brian E. Murphy); U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court (stay) | Noncitizens already physically in the United States who have final orders of removal and whom DHS seeks to deport to a "third country" — one not designated in their removal proceedings and often not their country of origin (e.g., South Sudan, Eswatini). The litigation concerns whether DHS must give advance written notice and a meaningful chance to raise a fear-of-torture (Convention Against Torture) claim before such a removal. | 2026-07-25 |
| Nationwide expedited-removal expansion Make the Road New York v. Mullin · D.C. Cir. No. 25-5320; D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00190 | In effect now | U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) | Noncitizens already physically inside the U.S. who entered without admission or parole and cannot prove at least two years of continuous presence. The restored 2025 rule lets DHS place them in expedited removal — summary deportation without a hearing before an immigration judge — anywhere in the country's interior, not only near the border. | 2026-07-25 |
| Day-one asylum suspension (Proclamation 10888) RAICES v. Noem · D.C. Cir. No. 25-5243 (appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00306, Moss, J.) | Partially blocked | U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | Affects noncitizens present in or arriving at the U.S. southern border who seek asylum — the litigation covers a certified nationwide class of all individuals subject to Proclamation 10888 who are now or will be present in the United States. Because of a partial appellate stay, the proclamation's bar on asylum still operates at the border, while withholding-of-removal and Convention Against Torture protection screening remains available. | 2026-07-25 |
| Asylum metering at the border Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · No. 25-5 | Decided | U.S. Supreme Court | Asylum seekers physically located on the Mexican side of U.S. southern-border ports of entry who have not yet crossed into U.S. territory: under this ruling they have not "arrived in the United States" and cannot invoke the statutory right to apply for asylum, so CBP may turn them back via metering. People who have already physically crossed into and are present in the United States retain the statutory ability to apply for asylum and were not stripped of that right by this decision. | 2026-07-25 |
| Speech-based deportation of students & faculty American Association of University Professors v. Rubio · D. Mass. No. 1:25-cv-10685; 1st Cir. No. 26-1141 (appeal), No. 25-1658 (earlier mandamus petition) | In litigation | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge William G. Young); on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | Categorically affects noncitizen students, faculty, and scholars who are lawfully present in the United States and engage in protected political speech (notably pro-Palestinian advocacy). The case concerns a federal policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting such individuals based on the viewpoint of their speech. | 2026-07-25 |
| Alien registration mandate (Form G-325R) Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (a/k/a CHIRLA v. Noem) — alien registration / Form G-325R interim final rule · D.D.C. 1:25-cv-00943-TNM; D.C. Cir. 25-5152 (consolidated with 25-5233 and 25-5247) | In effect now | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Trevor N. McFadden); on appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | Affects noncitizens already physically present in the United States who are age 14 or older and were not previously registered or fingerprinted — for example, people who entered without inspection, certain parolees and applicants without a registration document, and Canadian visitors staying 30+ days — who under the interim final rule must file Form G-325R, submit biometrics, and carry proof of registration, with criminal penalties for willful failure to register or to carry proof. People already documented as registered (most lawful permanent residents, EAD holders, those issued an I-94 or placed in removal proceedings, and many DACA/TPS recipients with the right documents) are generally treated as already registered. | 2026-07-25 |
| SEVIS terminations & student-visa revocations Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration v. Bondi · 1:25-cv-11109-PBS | In litigation | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Patti B. Saris) | Affects F-1 international students and Optional Practical Training (OPT) participants physically present in the United States whose SEVIS records were terminated and/or whose student visas were revoked in spring 2025, often without notice or individualized review. The suit is a facial challenge to the underlying federal policies, so its outcome bears on the broader category of international students subject to database-match-based SEVIS terminations. | 2026-07-25 |
| Sanctuary-jurisdiction funding conditions City and County of San Francisco v. Trump · N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-01350 (Judge William H. Orrick); preliminary injunction on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick); on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Affects residents of "sanctuary" cities and counties — local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The case concerns whether the federal government may withhold or condition federal grant funds (public-safety, health, social-service, and transportation dollars) on those jurisdictions abandoning their sanctuary policies; the court's injunction currently keeps that funding flowing. A related companion case before the same judge protects FEMA/DHS disaster-preparedness grants to the same kinds of jurisdictions. | 2026-07-25 |
| Green-card holders at reentry: Blanche v. Lau Blanche v. Lau · No. 25-429 | Decided | U.S. Supreme Court | Lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) who travel internationally and have a criminal conviction, a pending charge, or any alleged crime involving moral turpitude in their history. On return, a border officer may treat them as an applicant for admission and — under this ruling — needs only a "reason to believe" the offense occurred to deny admission and refer them to removal proceedings. | 2026-07-25 |
| IRS–ICE Taxpayer Data Sharing: Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent · D.C. Cir. No. 25-5181 (aff'g D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00677, Friedrich, J.) | Partially blocked | U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | People who file U.S. taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or who otherwise have a return on file with the IRS, including immigrants without lawful status. Under the D.C. Circuit's reasoning, Section 6103 would let the IRS give ICE the name and address on file for a qualifying request tied to a non-tax criminal investigation; however, separate district-court injunctions currently block large-scale sharing. The decision does not authorize sharing for civil immigration enforcement, and it does not open up the contents of a tax return, such as income, dependents, or deductions. | 2026-07-25 |
| Roving Immigration Stops and Racial Profiling: Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo · No. 25A169 (U.S.); No. 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.); No. 25-4312 (9th Cir.) | In litigation | U.S. Supreme Court (emergency stay); U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | People in the Los Angeles area, and potentially elsewhere, who could be subject to brief immigration stops by federal agents during enforcement operations. The case concerns what factors agents may use to form "reasonable suspicion" under the Fourth Amendment, including whether apparent ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, the type of place a person is in, and the kind of work they appear to do can support a stop. While the Supreme Court's stay is in effect, the district court's limits on those stops are paused. A separate part of the case protects access to a lawyer for people detained at a downtown Los Angeles facility. This is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| Florida's SB 4-C 'Illegal Entry' Crime: Blocked Statewide Florida Immigrant Coalition v. Uthmeier · 11th Cir. No. 25-11469; S.D. Fla. No. 1:25-cv-21524; U.S. Supreme Court application No. 24A1269 | Blocked by court | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) | Immigrants physically present in Florida. SB 4-C, signed February 13, 2025, created state crimes of "illegal entry" and "illegal reentry" into Florida by people without lawful immigration status — letting state and local police arrest on that basis and requiring pretrial detention without bond. Because the law is blocked statewide, state and local officers cannot arrest, charge, or prosecute anyone under SB 4-C while the injunction stands. The block does not change federal immigration law or federal enforcement, and it does not affect Florida's separate SB 1718 provisions. | 2026-07-25 |
| Medicaid Data Sharing With ICE: Court Limits on the HHS–DHS Agreement California v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 3:25-cv-05536-VC (N.D. Cal.) | Partially blocked | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California | Affects Medicaid enrollees and their families in the plaintiff states (a coalition led by California), especially mixed-status households. It addresses whether immigration authorities can obtain Medicaid enrollment information for immigration enforcement. Under the current order, DHS cannot receive medical records or data about U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from those states; only limited biographical and contact data about people who are not lawfully present may be shared. | 2026-07-25 |
| Civil denaturalization: efforts to revoke naturalized U.S. citizenship DOJ civil denaturalization initiative (TRAC Report 774) · 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (INA § 340); DOJ Civil Division enforcement-priorities memo (June 11, 2025); TRAC Report 774 | In litigation | U.S. district courts (nationwide) | Naturalized U.S. citizens — people born abroad who later became citizens. Civil denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (INA § 340) asks a federal court to revoke citizenship the government says was "illegally procured" or obtained by concealing a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. The June 11, 2025 DOJ Civil Division priorities memo lists the categories the government says it will pursue first, such as national-security or terrorism ties, war crimes or human-rights violations, gang or cartel affiliation, serious undisclosed crimes, and government-program fraud. Unlike criminal denaturalization, the civil process has no jury, no government-appointed defense attorney, and no statute of limitations; the government must prove its case by "clear, convincing, and unequivocal" evidence. U.S. citizens by birth are not affected. This is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| Court vacates USCIS asylum and benefits adjudication holds (39 countries) Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · D.R.I. No. 1:26-cv-00132-JJM-PAS (on appeal: 1st Cir. No. 26-1703) | Decided | U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island | People from 39 "travel-ban" countries — which include large Cuban, Haitian, and Venezuelan communities — whose green-card (adjustment of status), work-permit (EAD), naturalization, and other USCIS benefit applications had been frozen, plus anyone with a pending asylum or withholding-of-removal case, since that hold applied regardless of nationality. With the policies vacated, USCIS is again issuing decisions on these applications and is no longer re-reviewing already-approved cases or weighing country of origin as an automatic negative factor. This restores normal processing; it does not change who qualifies for any benefit. | 2026-07-25 |
| 2025 USCIS Naturalization Civics Test: 128-Question Bank, 20 Asked, 12 to Pass USCIS 2025 Naturalization Civics Test (128-question bank) · USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 12 update / Policy Alert (Oct. 20, 2025); Federal Register Notice of Implementation 90 FR 45047 (Doc. 2025-18050, Sept. 18, 2025); implements Executive Order 14161 | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) | Lawful permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship through Form N-400. If you file on or after October 20, 2025, you take the 2025 civics test: 20 questions from a 128-question bank, 12 correct to pass. If you filed before that date, you take the 2008 test: 10 questions from a 100-question bank, 6 correct to pass. A long-standing exception is preserved: applicants who are 65 or older and have been lawful permanent residents for 20 or more years are tested on 10 questions from a specially selected bank of 20. The change affects only the civics portion of the naturalization test — the English reading, writing, and speaking requirements stay the same. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Good Moral Character Standard and Revived Neighborhood Investigations for Naturalization (PM-602-0188 / PM-602-0189) USCIS good moral character reframe and revived neighborhood investigations for naturalization (PM-602-0188 / PM-602-0189) · USCIS PM-602-0189 (INA 335(a)) + companion good-moral-character memo PM-602-0188 (INA 101(f)), August 2025 | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (policy memoranda) | Applies to people filing Form N-400 (lawful permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship). It changes how officers judge good moral character by adding a weighing of both favorable and unfavorable factors, and it revives the agency's authority to contact neighbors, employers, or coworkers and to request testimonial letters in order to corroborate residence, character, and community ties. Not every applicant is investigated — USCIS describes the personal investigations as case-by-case. | 2026-07-25 |
| Secure America Act: $70 billion for ICE and CBP immigration enforcement Secure America Act, S. 2 (Public Law 119-98) · S. 2, 119th Congress; Public Law 119-98 (signed June 10, 2026) | In effect now | U.S. Congress (enacted law) | Everyone living in the United States within reach of federal immigration enforcement — it sets the funding level for that enforcement through 2029. The money pays for ICE detention and removal operations, agent and personnel hiring at ICE and CBP, surveillance and technology, and 287(g) agreements that let state and local law enforcement perform certain immigration-enforcement functions. The law does not by itself change anyone's immigration status, eligibility, or legal rights, and it does not amend the visa, asylum, or admissibility rules; it determines how much money the enforcement agencies have to operate. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Notice to Appear policy: when a denied application can lead to removal proceedings Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens (USCIS PM-602-0187) · USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0187 (Feb. 28, 2025) | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (agency policy) | People in the United States who apply to USCIS for an immigration benefit — such as adjustment of status, an extension or change of status, a green-card renewal, naturalization, or asylum — and are denied while out of lawful status or otherwise removable. Under this policy a denial can lead directly to an NTA and the start of removal proceedings. Most employment-based petition beneficiaries are carved out of the policy, but their dependents (including Form I-539 applicants) are not. This is general information, not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific situation. | 2026-07-25 |
| Supreme Court declines Florida's suit over commercial licenses for undocumented drivers Florida v. California (and Washington) · No. 162, Original | Decided | U.S. Supreme Court (original jurisdiction) | Non-citizens who hold or are seeking a commercial driver's license (CDL) in California or Washington, and anyone who heard that this case "ended" CDL eligibility for immigrants. Because the Court declined to hear the suit and issued no ruling on the merits, no one's CDL eligibility changed and no precedent was set — California's and Washington's licensing laws remain in place exactly as before. The order is a procedural decision about which court can hear a dispute between states, not a ruling on who may hold a commercial license. | 2026-07-25 |
| How appeals courts review asylum denials: the substantial-evidence standard Urias-Orellana v. Bondi · No. 24-777 | Decided | U.S. Supreme Court | People already in the United States who are appealing the denial of an asylum claim to a federal court of appeals after an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that the harm they described does not rise to the level of "persecution." The decision confirms that these courts give substantial deference to the agency's persecution finding rather than deciding the question fresh, which makes such a denial harder to overturn on appeal. | 2026-07-25 |
| Bond hearings after interior ICE arrests: circuit split Cunha v. Freden; Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi; Herrera Avila v. Bondi; Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden · 2d Cir. No. 25-3141; 5th Cir. No. 25-20496; 8th Cir. No. 25-3248; 11th Cir. No. 25-14065 | In litigation | U.S. Courts of Appeals (2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th & 11th Circuits) | Immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection, have been living here, and are arrested in the interior (not at or near the border) and placed in removal proceedings — and their ability to ask an immigration judge for release on bond while their case is pending. Whether a bond hearing is available now depends on the circuit where the person is detained: it is available in the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 11th Circuits, but not in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) or the 8th Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota). This does not change mandatory detention for people caught at or near the border, or mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for certain criminal or terrorism-related grounds. | 2026-07-25 |
| DHS Ends the Automatic Extension of Work Permits (EADs) Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents (DHS interim final rule, RIN 1615-AD05) · RIN 1615-AD05; FR Doc. 2025-19702 (90 FR 48799); litigation No. 8:26-cv-00060 (C.D. Cal.) | In effect now | U.S. Department of Homeland Security / USCIS (rulemaking); challenge pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | People who file Form I-765 to renew an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) on or after October 30, 2025 in categories that previously qualified for the automatic extension — for example, adjustment-of-status applicants (c)(9), asylum applicants (c)(8), and H-4 and L-2 dependent spouses. For these renewals, the work permit is no longer extended automatically while USCIS processes the case; if the replacement card has not been issued before the current EAD expires, employment authorization lapses and the worker generally must stop working until the new card arrives. The change applies only to renewals filed on or after October 30, 2025: EADs that were already automatically extended before that date keep their extension, and separate TPS-related automatic extensions granted through Federal Register notices are not affected. As a measure of scale, USCIS reported receiving an average of about 52,800 automatic-extension-eligible renewal EAD applications per month in fiscal year 2023. (Note: the rule does not state that 800,000 renewal applicants per year are affected; that 800,000 figure was a USCIS projection of applicants who could have faced an EAD lapse over the roughly 22-month period from May 2024 to March 2026 had the temporary 540-day extension not been in place.) | 2026-07-25 |
| Protections for U Visa, T Visa, and VAWA Survivors (ICWC v. Noem) Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem · C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS; 9th Cir. No. 26-3961 | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Hon. André Birotte Jr.), now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and certain other crimes who have a pending VAWA self-petition, U visa petition, or T visa petition. The order limits how ICE may detain or remove members of the certified classes under the January 2025 policy while their petitions are pending. This is general information about a court case, not legal advice; the relief is preliminary and under appeal. | 2026-07-25 |
| Tennessee HB 1704 / SB 1779 (Public Chapter 771): state crime for remaining after a final removal order Lucy v. Skrmetti · Tenn. Public Chapter 771 (HB 1704 / SB 1779); Lucy v. Skrmetti, No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.) | Decided | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division) | Section 1 of Tennessee's HB 1704 (Public Chapter 771) creates a new state crime — a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. It applies only to a person 18 or older who (1) is a noncitizen against whom a valid final order of removal is outstanding by reason of being a member of one of the deportability classes listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a), and (2) intentionally fails or refuses to leave Tennessee within 90 days of that final removal order. It does not reach every noncitizen who has a removal order — it is limited to people removable under the § 1227(a) deportability grounds. The statute directs the court to stay the criminal case while the person is still pursuing available federal avenues to challenge the removal order. This is Tennessee state criminal law; federal immigration enforcement is separate. A second offense in the same act (Section 2, illegal re-entry into the state) does not take effect unless and until federal law changes, and is not addressed by this litigation. | 2026-07-25 |
| Texas SB 8: Mandatory Sheriff–ICE 287(g) Jail Agreements Texas Senate Bill 8 (mandatory sheriff–ICE 287(g) agreements) · Tex. S.B. 8, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) | In effect now | Texas Legislature (89th Legislature, Regular Session); signed by Gov. Greg Abbott | Affects people booked into county jails across Texas. Once a county's sheriff has a 287(g) agreement, designated jail or sheriff's-office personnel are authorized to perform certain federal immigration functions — such as identifying and processing people for possible immigration holds (detainers) — under ICE supervision. It is a state mandate directed at sheriffs; it does not change federal immigration eligibility rules or who may be arrested under state law. | 2026-07-25 |
| Immigration Enforcement at Churches and Other "Sensitive Locations" New England Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · No. 4:25-cv-40102 (D. Mass.) | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV) | Immigrants who attend, work at, or use services from the specific congregations of the plaintiff faith groups (ELCA Lutheran synods, American Baptist Churches USA, the Alliance of Baptists, and Metropolitan Community Churches). At those churches the order limits warrantless ICE activity in and immediately around the property. It does NOT protect houses of worship nationwide: outside these plaintiffs' churches, the January 2025 rescission of the federal "protected areas" (sensitive-locations) guidance still stands, so there is no special federal limit on immigration enforcement at other churches, schools, or hospitals. Even at the protected churches, enforcement under a warrant or in a genuine emergency is still allowed. | 2026-07-25 |
| Court Strikes Down ICE Immigration-Courthouse Arrest Policy Nationwide Pablo Sequen v. Albarran · N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06487 (Pitts, J.) | Decided | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California | People who attend hearings at immigration courthouses, and people held in ICE short-term holding rooms. The ruling restores the prior rules nationwide: civil immigration arrests in and around immigration courthouses are again barred except in limited circumstances, and ICE's 12-hour cap on short-term detention is reinstated. It is a court ruling about agency procedure, not a change in immigration eligibility, and it can still be appealed. | 2026-07-25 |
| Federal Court Strikes Down DHS's Overhauled SAVE Voter-Citizenship Database League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (SAVE voter-verification overhaul) · No. 1:25-cv-03501-SLS (U.S. District Court, D.D.C.; Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan) | Decided | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | Naturalized U.S. citizens — and others whose government records carried outdated or unreliable citizenship data — who risked being wrongly flagged as non-citizens and removed from state voter rolls when states checked registrations against the overhauled SAVE database. The ruling stops states and federal agencies from using the 2025 version of SAVE to verify voter citizenship or trigger roll purges. It does not end immigration-status verification for public benefits, employment (E-Verify), or licensing, which continue under the older, pre-2025 SAVE system. | 2026-07-25 |
| Wassily v. Blanche: Supreme Court Case on Adjusting Status After Asylum Is Terminated Wassily v. Blanche · No. 25-842 | Awaiting decision | U.S. Supreme Court | People who were granted asylum in the United States and later had that asylum terminated — for example, after a conviction treated as a "particularly serious crime" — and who are seeking to become lawful permanent residents. The federal appeals courts are split: the Second and Fourth Circuits hold that adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) is not available once asylum has been terminated, while the Fifth Circuit has allowed former asylees to apply. The Supreme Court's ruling will set one nationwide rule on whether a person whose asylum was terminated can still pursue a green card through this path. This is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| ICE Form I-9 Audits: What the 2026 Violation Rule Change Means for Workers ICE Form I-9 substantive-violations reclassification (Form I-9 Inspection fact-sheet update) · ICE Form I-9 Inspection fact-sheet update (no Federal Register notice / no docket) | In effect now | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (agency policy, not a court case) | Workers whose employers are audited by ICE. The rule change itself is about fines charged to employers for paperwork errors, not about a worker's immigration status. But it matters to workers because I-9 audits (Notices of Inspection) have risen sharply — the 2025 rate was reported at roughly ten times the 2024 level of about 230 audits — and this change makes those audits harsher: employers can no longer quickly fix small I-9 mistakes to avoid penalties. When ICE inspects a workplace, it reviews the I-9 forms on file; if a worker's employment authorization cannot be confirmed during the audit, the employer is generally required to end that worker's employment. Because the paperwork now triggers immediate fines with no cure window, employers face pressure to re-verify staff and terminate workers whose I-9s cannot be corrected. Sectors most affected include construction, staffing, hospitality, manufacturing, and retail. This entry explains what an I-9 audit is and what it can mean for you as an employee — it is general information, not legal advice, and it does not assess anyone's individual case. | 2026-07-25 |
| New Jersey Codifies Its Immigrant Trust Laws Limiting Local Police Cooperation with ICE New Jersey Immigrant Trust package (A4071/S3521 Immigrant Trust Act; A4070/S3522 Privacy Protection Act; S3114/S3216 law-enforcement identification act) · N.J. A4071/S3521 (P.L.2026, c.5); A4070/S3522 (P.L.2026, c.4); SCS S3114/S3216 (P.L.2026, c.3) | In effect now | New Jersey State Legislature (enacted state law) | Immigrants living in New Jersey and their families during encounters with state, county, and municipal police, sheriffs, jails, and prosecutors — not with federal agents. The laws limit how far New Jersey's own officers may go in helping ICE: they generally may not ask about immigration status without a criminal-investigation reason, hold someone extra time for ICE on a civil detainer alone, or give ICE non-public access to local databases and facilities, and they may not join the 287(g) program. Federal immigration enforcement itself is unchanged — ICE and CBP still operate in New Jersey under federal law, and the statutes include carve-outs (for example, for people charged with or convicted of certain serious offenses and, under the enacted amendments, notice in some final-removal-order situations). This is general information about what the statutes do, not legal advice about any individual case. | 2026-07-25 |
| Proposed rule to restrict discretionary work permits for parolees, deferred-action holders, and people on orders of supervision Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens (NPRM) · DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0067; RIN 1615-AC98; 91 FR 34352 (June 5, 2026); FR Doc. 2026-11285 | Awaiting decision | U.S. Department of Homeland Security / USCIS (rulemaking) | The proposal would change how discretionary Employment Authorization Documents (EADs, or work permits) are granted and renewed for three groups of people already in the United States: (1) people paroled into the country for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, such as CHNV (Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan), Ukrainian, and Afghan parolees; (2) people granted deferred action; and (3) people with a final order of removal who are released on an order of supervision, including some with deferral or withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. For these categories the rule would end automatic work-permit issuance and require a case-by-case discretionary review: applicants would generally have to show economic necessity, submit biometrics with each application, and pass criminal-history and gang-affiliation screening, and USCIS proposes to shorten EAD validity to generally no more than one year, placing the burden on the applicant to keep proving eligibility. USCIS reports these categories filed 978,308 EAD applications in 2024 and estimates a 10-year economic impact of roughly $9.1 billion to $27.9 billion. This does not cover asylum-based work permits under a separate category, and it is a proposal only. | 2026-07-25 |
| Pacito v. Trump: Court Challenge to the Refugee Admissions (USRAP) Suspension Pacito v. Trump · 9th Cir. Nos. 25-1313 & 25-1939; W.D. Wash. No. 2:25-cv-00255 | Partially blocked | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington) | Refugees who have already arrived in the United States, especially those resettled within the last 90 days, remain entitled to the domestic reception and placement services (housing help, cash assistance, case management) that the court preserved. Refugees who were approved before the suspension but had not yet entered generally cannot complete travel while the admissions pause stands. U.S.-based petitioners in the Follow-to-Join (Form I-730) family reunification process, and the case's three certified classes, are also affected. This is a preliminary-injunction ruling, not a final decision on the program's legality. | 2026-07-25 |
| H-2A Farmworker Wage Rule Changes (AEWR) and United Farm Workers v. DOL United Farm Workers v. U.S. Department of Labor (H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rate methodology rule) · No. 1:25-cv-01614 (E.D. Cal.); rule: FR Doc. 2025-19365, RIN 1205-AC24, DOL Docket No. ETA-2025-0008 | In effect now | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor) | The Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is the minimum hourly wage floor employers must pay H-2A temporary agricultural workers, and it also influences pay for many U.S. farmworkers who do the same jobs. This rule changes how that floor is calculated: it uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey by state and territory instead of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Labor Survey, sorts most field and livestock positions into five occupational codes and two skill levels (entry-level and higher-skill), and adds an adjustment factor that can lower the wage when the employer provides free housing. It affects H-2A crop and livestock workers nationwide and the domestic farmworkers whose pay tracks these rates. | 2026-07-25 |
| ICE Ankle Monitors and ISAP Check-In Rules (Alternatives to Detention) ICE June 9, 2025 memo expanding GPS ankle monitors in the Alternatives to Detention (ISAP) program · No docket — internal ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations policy memo dated June 9, 2025 (agency policy, not court litigation) | In effect now | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations — agency policy | Non-detained immigrants supervised through ICE's Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program while their immigration cases are pending — people who have been released but must report to ICE and its contractor. It affects how they are monitored (a GPS ankle monitor, the SmartLINK smartphone app with photo/selfie check-ins, or telephonic reporting), how often they must check in (for example, app selfies, biweekly in-person office visits, or periodic home visits), and the risk of escalated supervision or detention if reporting conditions are not met. Pregnant enrollees are directed to wrist-worn devices rather than ankle monitors. It does not change eligibility for release or the outcome of any immigration case. This page explains what ISAP and SmartLINK are and general check-in obligations; it is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| Federal Funding for Unaccompanied Children's Legal Representation (CLSEPA v. HHS) Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-02847; 9th Cir. Nos. 25-2358 & 25-2808 | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | The case concerns roughly 26,000 unaccompanied children who are in, or have been released from, ORR custody and who receive government-funded attorneys in immigration proceedings. The money flows through a national program (managed by the Acacia Center for Justice, about $200 million a year) that subcontracts to more than 80 legal aid organizations across the country. The dispute centers on whether the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, which directs ORR to "ensure, to the greatest extent practicable" that these children have legal representation, requires the government to keep paying for it. While the injunction stands, the funded legal representation continues; families and legal aid providers involved in the Unaccompanied Children Program are the most directly affected. This is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| In-absentia removal orders and hearing notices Surge in in-absentia removal orders and hearing-notice problems (FY2026) · Operational trend — no single docket | In effect now | EOIR immigration courts (nationwide) | Anyone in removal proceedings before an EOIR immigration court who has a scheduled master calendar or individual hearing — especially people whose notice to appear (NTA) or hearing notice had an address error, arrived late, or was rescheduled to an earlier date. It also affects people who moved and did not update their address, because notices are mailed to the last address on file. Keeping your address current with the immigration court (Form EOIR-33) and with DHS (Form AR-11), and reading every notice you receive, are the main ways to avoid an in-absentia order. If one has already been entered, a motion to reopen based on lack of proper notice can be filed at any time, and filing it pauses removal while the judge decides. This page is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Tightens the Form N-648 Medical Disability Exception to the Naturalization English and Civics Test USCIS N-648 Medical Disability Exception Tightening (Naturalization English/Civics Waiver) · USCIS Policy Alert, effective June 13, 2025 (Policy Manual Vol. 12, Pt. E, Ch. 3) | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — agency policy | Lawful permanent residents applying to naturalize who seek a medical waiver of the English and civics tests using Form N-648 — often older or disabled green-card holders. Under the tightened standard, the medical professional (a licensed U.S. medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, or clinical psychologist) must clearly connect the specific disability or impairment to the applicant's inability to meet the English and civics requirements, even with reasonable accommodations. USCIS generally expects Form N-648 to be filed together with Form N-400 (rolling back an earlier allowance to file it later), and may flag duplicate or multiple N-648 submissions for closer fraud review. The exception itself remains available under INA § 312(b); what changed is how strictly the certification is scrutinized, which can affect the odds of approval for those relying on it. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Collects Social Media Usernames on Nine Immigration Forms USCIS Collection of Social Media Identifiers on Immigration Forms · FR Doc. 2025-03492 (60-day notice) and FR Doc. 2025-17816 (30-day notice); DHS Docket USCIS-2025-0003; OMB Control No. 1615-NEW (approved through Feb. 28, 2027) | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS) — Paperwork Reduction Act information collection | Applicants who file any of nine USCIS forms: N-400 (naturalization), I-485 (adjustment of status / green card), I-131 (travel document), I-751 (remove conditions on residence), I-730 (refugee/asylee relative petition), I-589 (asylum), I-590 (refugee classification), I-829 (remove conditions for investors), and I-192 (advance permission to enter as a nonimmigrant). On these forms, applicants are asked to provide the social media usernames they have used over roughly the past five years and the associated platforms. The change adds a form field for screening purposes; by itself it does not change who is eligible for a benefit. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Proposes Raising the N-400 Citizenship Fee to $1,330 and Ending Fee Waivers Naturalization Application Fee Adjustments (N-400 fee to $1,330; fee waivers eliminated) · Federal Register Doc. 2026-12542; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0265 (CIS No. 2834-25); RIN 1615-AD08 | Awaiting decision | U.S. Department of Homeland Security / U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Federal Register rulemaking) | The proposal would raise the paper Form N-400 (Application for Naturalization) fee from $760 to $1,330 and the online fee from $710 to $1,280 (about a 75–80% increase), and raise the Form N-336 (request for a hearing after an N-400 denial) fee from $830 to $1,475 for paper filing and from $780 to $1,425 online. It would also eliminate the $380 reduced-fee option for applicants at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines and end fee waivers for both Form N-400 and Form N-336. Statutory fee exemptions for qualifying military service members naturalizing under INA sections 328 and 329 would remain. It affects lawful permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship, especially lower-income applicants who currently rely on a fee waiver or the reduced fee. This is general information, not legal advice. | 2026-07-25 |
| Lawsuit over detention conditions at Camp East Montana (Fort Bliss, El Paso) Akari Angye et al. v. ICE · W.D. Tex. (El Paso Division) — class action; class-certification motion pending (case number not yet public) | In litigation | U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (El Paso Division) | People currently or in the future held at Camp East Montana on the Fort Bliss base in El Paso — the class the lawsuit seeks to represent. The site is described as the largest ICE detention center, designed to hold up to about 5,000 people. The case addresses conditions of confinement (medical care, use of force, solitary confinement, food, and sanitation); it does not change any individual's immigration case, removal proceedings, or eligibility for any immigration benefit. How the court rules could also influence legal standards for detention conditions at other large ICE tent facilities. | 2026-07-25 |
| New H.R.1 (OBBBA) Immigration Fees: Asylum, Work Permit (EAD), and TPS Charges USCIS Immigration Fees Required by H.R.1 (OBBBA) — new asylum, EAD, and TPS fees · FR Doc. 2025-13738; 90 FR 34511 (Jul 22, 2025) | Partially blocked | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS), Federal Register notice | People applying for or with a pending asylum case (Form I-589); asylum seekers, parolees, and TPS holders who apply for or renew a work permit (Form I-765/EAD); and people registering or re-registering for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821). These are three of the largest humanitarian categories, and the charges apply even to filings that used to be free. Because the fees cannot be waived, they raise the up-front cost of applying for humanitarian protection and work authorization. | 2026-07-25 |
| Federal challenge to New York's Green Light Law (immigrant driver's licenses and DMV data privacy) United States v. State of New York · N.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-00205 (on appeal: 2nd Cir. No. 26-387) | In litigation | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) | New York residents who hold or are applying for a standard New York driver's license or non-driver ID, and anyone worried about whether the New York DMV can share their records with ICE or CBP. As of the last check, nothing has changed: the Green Light Law is still in effect, standard licenses are still issued regardless of immigration status, and state law still bars the DMV from disclosing its records to immigration-enforcement agencies without a judicial warrant or court order (and requires notifying the person when such a request is made). The federal government's appeal does not pause the law. This case does not change anyone's immigration status, and holding a New York license does not, by itself, affect a person's immigration case. | 2026-07-25 |
| SIJS Deferred Action and Work Permit Changes A.C.R. v. Noem · No. 1:25-cv-03962 (E.D.N.Y.); appeal pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Partially blocked | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) | Affects immigrant youth who have an approved Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petition but cannot yet apply for a green card because no visa is available. Under the 2022 policy, USCIS automatically considered these youth for deferred action, which provides protection from deportation and access to a work permit (EAD). The changes determine whether that automatic consideration continues: petitions filed before May 10, 2026 are still considered automatically, while petitions filed on or after that date are not. Young people who already hold SIJS-based deferred action generally keep it, and their work permit, until it expires, though USCIS can end it case by case. Advocacy groups estimate the policy has affected roughly 200,000 SIJS youth. | 2026-07-25 |
| End of "duration of status" for F-1, J-1, and I (final — effective Sept. 15, 2026) Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media · DHS Docket No. ICEB-2025-0001; RIN 1653-AA95; NPRM at 90 FR 42070 (FR Doc. 2025-16554) | Decided | DHS / ICE rulemaking — not a court case | F (academic students), J (exchange visitors), and I (foreign information-media) nonimmigrants and their dependents. The final rule replaces open-ended “duration of status” admission with a fixed admission period — for F-1, up to 4 years or the program end date, whichever is shorter — keeps a 30-day grace period, and requires an extension-of-stay application to USCIS for additional time. Transition: those already in the U.S. on D/S keep their status until the program end date on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 or 4 years after the effective date, whichever comes first (new 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)(ii)); anyone who travels abroad after the effective date receives an I-94 with a fixed date on return. | 2026-07-25 |
| California school and family immigrant-protection laws (AB 49, SB 98, AB 419, AB 495) California AB 49, SB 98, AB 419 & AB 495 (2025 school and family immigrant-protection laws) · AB 49 (Ch. 122); SB 98 (Ch. 124); AB 419 (Ch. 663); AB 495 (Ch. 664), Stats. 2025 | In effect now | California State Legislature (enacted; signed by the Governor) — not litigation | AB 49 bars school officials from letting immigration-enforcement officers into nonpublic areas of a K-12 schoolsite without a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or court order, and limits disclosure of student and family records. SB 98 requires schools to notify the campus community when immigration enforcement is confirmed on site, but the requirements differ by level. For K-12 local educational agencies (LEAs) and charter schools, the LEA has sole discretion over the content and timing of the notice (it must prioritize student safety and may not include personally identifiable information), and the law does NOT require the notice to state the date, time, or location of the enforcement. Only postsecondary campuses (community college districts, the California State University, and qualifying independent institutions) must include the date and time the enforcement was confirmed, its location, and a link to support resources. AB 419 requires schools to post information about students' rights regarding immigration enforcement in administrative offices and on school websites. AB 495 (Family Preparedness Act) makes it easier for parents to plan for their children's care if they are detained or deported (expanded caregiver's authorization affidavits and joint guardianship for a temporarily unavailable parent), keeps related guardianship records confidential, and bars licensed child care and state preschool programs from collecting immigration-status information except as required by law. | 2026-07-25 |
| Flores Settlement: limits on detaining migrant children Flores v. Bondi (Flores Settlement Agreement) · C.D. Cal. No. 2:85-cv-04544-DMG (AGRx) (Judge Dolly M. Gee); denial of the motion to terminate on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-6308 | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Judge Dolly M. Gee); on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Affects migrant children — and, in practice, families — held in U.S. immigration detention. The Flores Settlement Agreement sets nationwide minimum standards for how long and under what conditions children may be held and how promptly they should be released from immigration custody. Because it limits prolonged detention of children, it also shapes how long families with children can be detained together. Children held by DHS (CBP and ICE) are still covered by the Agreement; unaccompanied children in HHS/ORR custody are now governed mainly by ORR's 2024 Foundational Rule, with some Agreement protections retained. The current fight is over whether the government may end the Agreement altogether; while that appeal is pending, the Agreement's protections continue to apply in DHS custody. | 2026-07-25 |
| USCIS Ends Paper Checks and Money Orders: Electronic Fee Payment Required (Executive Order 14247) USCIS Transition to Electronic Payments (Executive Order 14247) · USCIS Policy Alert, Transition to Electronic Payments (Aug. 29, 2025); Exec. Order 14247 | In effect now | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security — agency policy, not court litigation | Anyone paying a USCIS filing fee by mail — for example applications and petitions such as N-400, I-485, I-765, I-130, I-129, or I-539. Paper checks and money orders can no longer be used to pay these fees. Mailed filings must include Form G-1650 (ACH debit, which requires a U.S. bank account) or Form G-1450 (credit, debit, or prepaid card); online filings are paid through Pay.gov. Requestors who cannot use electronic payment may request an exemption on Form G-1651 by certifying, for example, that they lack access to banking or that electronic payment would cause undue hardship; if approved, USCIS will accept a personal or business check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check. | 2026-07-25 |
| California City detention facility conditions injunction (Gomez Ruiz v. ICE) Gomez Ruiz et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) · No. 3:25-cv-09757 (N.D. Cal.), transferred to E.D. Cal.; 9th Cir. appeals No. 26-1294 (CoreCivic) and No. 26-2302 (federal defendants) | Blocked by court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (transferred to the Eastern District of California); appeals pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | People held in ICE immigration detention at the CoreCivic-operated California City Detention Facility in Kern County, California. The case concerns conditions of confinement for civil immigration detainees at that specific facility — medical and mental-health care, disability accommodations, attorney access, and clothing for cold conditions. It does not change immigration eligibility, benefits, or removal rules. | 2026-07-25 |
Litigation status verified against primary sources (courts, Federal Register, agencies) as of 2026-07-25. A case's status can change with a single ruling — confirm on the official source linked from each case before acting. General information, not legal advice.
How many people each case touches
The cases below carry a published, sourced estimate of how many people they could affect. These are estimates from public sources and vary by methodology — each figure is sourced on its own case page.
Asylum work-permit (EAD) rule (proposed)
1,525,933 asylum applications pending before USCIS at the end of FY2025 (the work-permit-eligible pool); about 2.3M more cases pend in immigration court
DACA work permits (Texas case)
580,000 active DACA recipients nationwide whose work-permit legality is at issue (the Texas-only injunction covers ~90,000)
CHNV humanitarian parole termination
500,000 CHNV (Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan) parole beneficiaries who lost status (broader parole programs add more)
TPS termination litigation
334,595 Haiti (~330,735) + Syria (~3,860) TPS holders directly affected by the June 25 ruling; Venezuela (~605,000) and Honduras/Nicaragua/Nepal (~61,295) terminated in separate cases
Birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court
260,000 U.S. births per year that would not have qualified for citizenship under EO 14160 (Pew Research)
SEVIS terminations & student-visa revocations
4,700 F-1 international students whose SEVIS records were terminated in spring 2025 (4,700+; plus 1,600+ student visas revoked)
Estimated scale of people affected per case — each figure is sourced on its own case page. Estimates come from cited public sources and vary by methodology.
Go deeper on the underlying data
Several of these cases connect to data trackers on this site that we keep current:
- Temporary Protected Status by country — current designation, litigation posture, and re-registration windows for every TPS country.
- ICE detention population & facility statistics — who is detained and where, from ICE’s own data.
- Know Your Rights — what rights apply during an ICE encounter, recording rules, and 287(g) by state.
- Recently verified changes — the dated log of every change we make across the site.
How we keep this current
Each case here is tied to a primary source — a court docket or opinion, a Federal Register notice, or an agency page. An automated check re-reads those sources every day and updates the “checked” date you see on each case. When a check detects that a case’s legal meaning may have changed, a person verifies it against the official source before we change the published status — so a tracker can never get ahead of the official record. Every figure on a case page traces to a cited source; where no reliable figure exists, we say so rather than guess.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Immigration litigation moves quickly and outcomes can turn on facts specific to each person. For advice on a specific situation, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative.