D.C. Circuit Vacates Stay of DHS Parolee Expedited Removal Policies for Lack of Standing

The D.C. Circuit has vacated a district court order staying two DHS actions that directed immigration officers to consider expedited removal for parolees, holding that immigrant-rights organizations lacked standing to seek that relief because a regulation independently authorizing the same expedited removal of parolees remained unchallenged and in full effect.

The Court held that even if the challenged memorandum and email caused an increase in expedited removals, staying only those two documents would not likely reduce the rate of expedited removal given the government's continued reliance on the separate, unchallenged regulation, so the organizations failed to show the redressability required for standing. The Court also held it had appellate jurisdiction over the stay order and that the government itself had standing to appeal despite the practical overlap in authorities.

The full text of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin can be found here: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/08/25-5289-2187613.pdf

SCOTUS Finds States had no Standing to Sue over DHS Enforcement Priorities

The Supreme Court has determined that Texas and Louisiana have no standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement priorities memo.

The full text of US v. Texas can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf

Seventh Circuit finds that Petitioner in Reinstatement Proceedings is not Eligible for Asylum

The Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision holding that a petitioner in reinstatement proceedings does not have standing to challenge the statute and regulation that ban him from applying for asylum.  However, in reaching the merits of the claim, the court determined that the statute clearly renders such a petitioner ineligible for asylum.

The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D10-11/C:16-3234:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2043619:S:0

Seventh Circuit Finds that Individual Subject to Reinstated Expedited Order of Removal has no Standing to Challenge Asylum Regulations

The Seventh Circuit has found that an individual subject to a reinstated order of removal, and thus, who is ineligible under the regulations to apply for asylum, has no standing to challenge that regulation because asylum is a discretionary form of relief.  

The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D06-08/C:16-3234:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:1977342:S:0

Seventh Circuit Finds Petitioner has no Standing to Challenge Regulation Barring Asylum Application

The Seventh Circuit has held that a petitioner subjected to a final administrative order of removal for non-lawful permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony (FARO) has no standing to challenge the regulation that bars individuals subjects to FAROs from applying for asylum.  Asylum is a form of discretionary relief in which there is no liberty interest at stake, and thus, the petitioner cannot establish the regulation preventing him from applying for asylum has caused any actual injury to him.

The full text of Degaldo-Arteaga v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D05-12/C:16-1816:J:Bauer:aut:T:aOp:N:1962958:S:0