Case Law

A Salvadoran father argued that his son's asthma — including two hospital visits and daily medication — was reason enough to stop his deportation. The First Circuit disagreed in September 2026. The reason matters for anyone in removal proceedings who plans to use a child's health as the centerpiece of their case.

You got your green card, traveled abroad, and came back legally — but a criminal conviction from years earlier is now being used to deport you. Robert Dziedziach, a Polish-born lawful permanent resident, spent over a decade fighting deportation after a 2012 federal conviction for conspiring to retaliate against witnesses. On August 31, 2026, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ended that fight — and its ruling has direct implications for any green card holder with a criminal record.

You disclosed a messy past on your federal background check, got hired anyway, and then lost your job years later — not for a crime, but for how you filled out the forms. That is the story of George Jadue, a former ICE criminal investigator. In August 2026, a federal appeals court ruled against him, and the decision carries lessons for anyone navigating federal employment with a complicated immigration or citizenship history.

A Guatemalan family threatened by the same gang that murdered their relative just won a landmark asylum ruling. On August 31, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule, holding that it illegally blocked asylum seekers who crossed between official ports of entry. The decision could reopen asylum claims for thousands of people whose cases were denied under that rule.

The State Department stopped posting international agreements to its public website — and a federal court ruled in August 2026 that a lawsuit over that silence can proceed. The Lawfare Institute accused Secretary Marco Rubio of violating a 1972 transparency law that gives the public a right to see the text of US international agreements within 120 days. Some of those hidden agreements may directly shape immigration policy, deportation deals, and asylum arrangements.

You are an undocumented student in Arizona, enrolled at a state university on in-state tuition — and now the federal government is in court trying to end that. The Department of Justice sued four states in August 2026 over laws that let undocumented residents pay in-state tuition rates and receive state financial aid. If the lawsuits succeed, those benefits could disappear — and the legal fight is already producing results in other states.

Gabriel Buele Morocho filed a federal habeas corpus petition against the warden of Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center in August 2026, challenging his immigration detention. The full details of the court's decision in this case are not yet public. But the case highlights a right that every immigration detainee has — and that many don't know how to use.

You are in removal proceedings, watching for any court decision that might help your case — and a new ruling just dropped. A federal court issued a decision in Parada Calderon v. Blanche on August 28, 2026. The full details of what the court held are not yet public, but here is what immigrants should know right now.

A federal court issued a ruling in the case of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche in August 2026. The case name points to an immigration-related dispute between an individual and a government official. The full details of what the court decided — and who it affects — are not yet publicly confirmed.

A federal court case called Doe v. Edlow puts a basic question before the judiciary: can the US government keep asylum seekers locked up indefinitely, with no chance to ask a judge for release? The answer could affect thousands of people currently held in immigration detention. For anyone going through the asylum application process in the US, this case is one to watch.

An immigration court issued a decision in Matter of Chen in August 2026. The full text of the ruling has not been made public, and it is not yet known what legal question the court decided or which immigrants it may affect. Until official details are released, here is what you need to know.

You follow immigration news and a federal case name catches your eye: Center for Immigration Studies v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 2026. A lawsuit between a major immigration policy group and a powerful federal agency could affect refugees, asylum seekers, or immigrants in federally funded programs. The problem: the substance of what was decided is not yet in the public record.

Your child's name is on an immigration court document, and you have no idea what comes next. Cases labeled 'In Re Minor Child' open removal proceedings — the legal process that can end in deportation — against children, and one missed hearing can trigger an automatic removal order. Here is what the process looks like and what you can do right now.

A federal appeals court drew a sharp legal line in August 2026: showing up outside an immigration detention facility is not the same as doing legislative work. The Third Circuit's ruling in United States v. LaMonica McIver strips away immunity claims for two of three criminal counts against the lawmaker — and signals that courts will scrutinize what "oversight" of ICE facilities actually means. For immigrants inside those facilities, the stakes are real.

You were waiting for an immigrant visa — and then a blanket policy blocked your entire country from getting one. In August 2026, a federal court ruled that policy illegal and ordered the State Department to give those denied applicants a real, individual review.