Alarm over the Supreme Court’s expanding use of the shadow docket continues to grow, particularly in immigration cases, where the Trump administration has relied on emergency orders to accelerate a violent immigration enforcement campaign that inflicts severe harm on immigrant communities, especially communities of color. The Stanford Center for Racial Justice aptly captures this dynamic in a recent blog post :  “ Where it concerns immigration policy, the shadow docket has be

Today, a federal judge issued a Preliminary Injunction protecting Minnesota refugees from unlawful arrest and detention while the class action lawsuit U.H.A. v. Bondi proceeds.

Attorneys representing immigrants who were unlawfully re-detained at check-in appointments by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in San Diego are asking a federal court to temporarily block ICE from continuing to re-detain other immigrants who were previously released, while a lawsuit moves forward.

Today, a federal judge heard oral arguments on a preliminary injunction request in U.H.A. v. Bondi, a class action lawsuit challenging the unlawful arrest and detention of Minnesota refugees under Operation PARRIS.

As the federal government incarcerates increasing numbers of children and families, 26 U.S. Senators, 20 State Attorneys General’s Offices, and more than 180 prominent child and immigrant advocacy organizations, law professors, and former immigration judges have filed amicus briefs in the Ninth Circuit in support of the Flores Settlement.

Statutory interpretation in the courts has increasingly moved toward textualism. But even in a textualist era, purpose still matters, and effective litigators know how to develop the statutory story that gives meaning to the text. Legislative history and related legislative materials remain critical tools for building purpose-based arguments, responding to adverse interpretations, and strengthening briefing when statutory language is ambiguous or contested. This training will

Today, a federal judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing the Trump administration from arresting and detaining lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota under Operation PARRIS while the case challenging the practice proceeds. The judge also ordered the immediate release of all detained refugees in Minnesota and the release of those taken to Texas within five days.

Today, a group of refugees represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Berger Montague, and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and imprisonment of resettled refugees in Minnesota. Individual plaintiffs are lawfully resettled refugees who are not yet legal permanent residents.

Yesterday co-counsel teams from the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Children’s Rights, and National Center for Youth Law filed an opposition brief in the Ninth Circuit urging the Court to deny the government’s appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement.

While the ideological shift brought by the Trump Supreme Court appointments is well understood, far less understood is how the Court has transformed its own procedures through the rapid expansion of the so-called “shadow docket.” Today, the Court is increasingly using this accelerated, opaque process to resolve some of the country’s most consequential and controversial cases - with only limited briefing, no oral argument, and decisions that include little or no legal reasonin