Support Article

How To Search Guide
Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citation (Choose One)

Use this for most court reporters

S.Ct. reporter and WL only

LEXIS and L.Ed. only

Search for:

Support Article

How To Search Guide
21 cases
Ordered by
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem

1:25-cv-00872 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: March 24, 2025

This case challenged the federal government’s alleged sudden shift in immigration policy, threatening to subject thousands of legally paroled immigrants, including families fleeing violence and persecution, to fast-track deportation without basic due process. On March 24, 2025, three immigrant advocacy organizations, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), UndocuBlack Network, and CASA, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs …

Judgment for Plaintiff

IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
United States v. Walz

0:25-cv-02668 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: June 25, 2025

This case challenges the constitutionality of Minnesota’s state tuition and scholarship policies for undocumented students. On June 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, and the State of Minnesota. Represented by the Department’s Civil Division and Office of Immigration Litigation, the United States sought decla…

Case Is Ongoing

IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Calcano-Martinez v. INS

1:99-cv-10481 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Jan. 29, 1998

Closed Date: July 25, 2001

Three consolidated petitions were prompted by the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). For decades, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) provided for a discretionary waiver of deportation to allow amelioration of the rigid application of the deportability provisions in the case of legal permanent residents who committed deportable criminal offenses. The eligibility waiver criteria were limited to legal permanent residents who had maint…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
INS v. St. Cyr

3:99-cv-00260 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: April 27, 1999

Closed Date: July 25, 2001

This case was prompted by the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), which contained comprehensive amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). For decades, the INA provided for a discretionary waiver of deportation to allow amelioration of the rigid application of the deportability provisions in the case of legal permanent residents who committed deportable crim…

Docket

Dunbar v. INS

Feb. 12, 1999

Ruling on Petitions for Habeas Corpus

St. Cyr v. INS

Aug. 23, 1999

Opinion

St. Cyr v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Sept. 1, 2000

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Association of Federal Defenders, California Public Defenders Association, Committee for Public Counsel Services of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Cook County Public Defender’s Office, Division of Public Defender Services of the State of Connecticut, Florida Public Defender Association, Los Angeles County Public Defender, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York State Defenders Association, Public Defender of Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York, Washington Defenders Association in Support of Respondent

INS v. St. Cyr

March 28, 2001

SCOTUS Opinion

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr

June 25, 2001

IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli

1:19-cv-02676 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: Sept. 6, 2019

Closed Date: Aug. 18, 2021

On September 6, 2019, a legal services provider and seven individuals detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The individual plaintiffs, along with the Refugee & Immigrant Center for Education & Legal Services (RAICES), challenged new directives that the government issued at two detention…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Benavides v. Gartland

5:20-cv-00046 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Filed Date: April 8, 2020

Closed Date: Nov. 18, 2020

On April 8, 2020, three detainees in the Folkston ICE Processing center brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and private counsel, the plaintiffs sued Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the ICE Field Office, and the Folkston ICE Processing Center. The plaintiffs sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and alleged violations of their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. Specifically…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

0:07-cv-01959 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: April 19, 2007

Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2010

On April 19, 2007, a group of Latino plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging a series of raids by immigration agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ("ICE") and local police officials in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 - 14, 2007. The plaintiffs sued ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and various ICE and DHS officials and officers in their official capacity (“United States defendant…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
People of the State of California v. United States of America

3:17-cv-01911 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 20, 2017

Closed Date: April 18, 2019

This suit, filed on September 20, 2017, challenged President Trump's authorization of the construction of a border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The plaintiffs sued the federal government for failing to comply with existing laws and taking actions beyond the scope of its authority. President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13767 on Jan. 25, 2017; it directed DHS to "allocate all sources of Federal funds for the planning, designing and construction of a physical wall along the southern borde…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
A.B. v. Morgan

1:20-cv-00846 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: March 27, 2020

This case is about whether untrained Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents can make asylum determinations in place of trained career Asylum Officers. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from permitting CBP agents to conduct asylum interviews or make credible fear determinations pending a ruling on the merits in this case. Plaintiffs File Complaint Challenging "Credible Fear" Interviews by CBPOn March 27, 2…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Dent v. Sessions

2:10-cv-02673 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Dec. 14, 2010

Closed Date: April 1, 2019

On June 26, 2009, a Lawful Permanent Resident detained by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") filed this lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming his removal order. The plaintiff argued that the order was wrong as a matter of law and violated his constitutional rights.Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the adminis…