The Trump administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to again block courts from postponing its revocation of foreign nationals' temporary protected status, this time for 350,000 Haitians, saying its prior Venezuelan TPS decisions aren't holding sway.
The Washington State Department of Health said a contractor's attempts to escape an evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the company could not defend its jurisdictional claims in a lawsuit accusing it of illegally restricting access to an immigration facility.
The Second Circuit on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's bid to again freeze federal payments to New York and New Jersey for the ongoing $16 billion rehabilitation of aging commuter train tunnels under the Hudson River.
The Ninth Circuit's chief judge said the court is reviewing how to manage its "enormous immigration docket" after several judges appointed by President Donald Trump "unilaterally disrupted" the court's policymaking with a ruling questioning the legality of the court's practice to automatically stay deportations pending a review of the merits.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) for Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and an associated Letter of Authorization (LOA) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The requested regulations would govern the authorization of take of marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities using Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar systems in the western and central North Pacific and eastern Indian oceans over the course of 7 years from August 2026 through August 2033. NMFS requests comments on this proposed rule. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the promulgation of the requested ITR and issuance of the LOA; agency responses to public comments will be summarized in the final rule, if issued. The Navy's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA) and the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA).
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department of State ("Department") is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program ("DV Program") to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or to otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word "shall" to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term "sex" in lieu of "gender"; and replace the term "age" in the DV Program regulations with the phrase "date of birth" to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.
Order Halts Implementation of Dangerous Steps that Would Have Dismantled Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order late last night in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al., blocking significant pieces of the Trump-Vance administration’s new policy that sought to eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Plaintiffs in the case include Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center. Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and National Immigrant Justice Center represent the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit and motion for preliminary relief challenge the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR), “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was set to take effect today, March 9, 2026. The IFR would have imposed sweeping changes that would have eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases that have now been blocked, including:
- Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days;
- Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review; and
- Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted.
“At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. “We hope that this decision is the first step of many steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes.”
“Today’s ruling preserves a vital avenue for judicial review in removal proceedings,” said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, “And reminds government agencies to follow proper procedures when attempting to make sweeping changes to regulations.
“This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”
“Today, the court has again held the federal government to its foundational responsibility to afford basic fairness and due process to all whose rights it seeks to curtail,” said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS. “We are grateful to our counsel in this case, and proud to stand with our co-plaintiffs to work for a fair immigration system.”
“Today’s ruling is an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel,” said Mary Georgevich, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “While imperfect, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the body that Congress has mandated to review deportation orders when the immigration courts get it wrong. Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda. We are grateful the court seemed to see this proposed rule for what it was and is ruling to uphold both due process and rule of law.”
“Today’s decision makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations,” said Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward, who presented the oral argument. “Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights. This is another demonstration that litigation is powerful. We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”
“This order protects a critical safeguard in our immigration system: the ability to appeal a court decision,” said Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. “This rule would have led to the rushed deportations of untold people before their cases could even be properly reviewed. Today’s decision helps protect basic fairness in our immigration courts.”
The IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. By requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.
The legal team at Democracy Forward includes Erez Reuveni, Allyson Scher, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. Counsel at American Immigration Council include Michelle Lapointe and Suchi Mathur.
Read the opinion here and the order here.
The post Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review appeared first on American Immigration Council.
A Texas federal judge told an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday that he has "serious questions regarding the nature" of a proposed $68 million settlement the agency and the state of Texas reached with Colony Ridge Development.