Immigration Law
Description
This panel will examine the Supreme Court’s immigration docket, including Wassily v. Blanche and Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, and other pending and recent cases raising questions about immigration enforcement, asylum, and detention. The experts will ask what these cases reveal about the future of immigration law and the respective roles of Congress, the Executive, and the courts.
Materials for Panel
News Articles
- Understanding the Court’s Next Major Case on Asylum Seekers: Wassily v. Blanche - Duncan Fulton, SCOTUSblog
- What Is Habeas Corpus, the Basic Right That Trump Officials Have Discussed Suspending? - Amanda Holpuch, The New York Times
- SCOTUS to Hear ‘Mandatory Detention’ Case on Criminal Aliens in Removal Proceedings - Andrew Arthur, Center for Immigration Studies
- Ninth Circuit rejects Trump's 'no bail' immigration detention policy - Hillel Aaron, Courthouse News Service
- ICE pitches legal insurance to help shield local officers who make immigration arrests - The Associated Press, NBC News
- Supreme Court may decide important case on immigration detention regarding attorneys’ fees - César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, SCOTUSblog
Pending Cases
Wassily v. Bondi, 150 F.4th 100 (2d Cir. 2025), cert. granted sub nom. Wassily v. Blanche, No. 25-842, 2026 WL 1855117 (U.S. June 29, 2026).
- Description: In Wassily v. Blanche, the Supreme Court will decide whether asylum beneficiaries are barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency if their asylum status has been terminated within the United States. The center of the debate revolves around the Refugee Act of 1980, which, although carefully crafted the process for noncitizens outside of the United States, has left the internal asylum procedures more undefined. Specifically, the Refugee Act specified that refugees processed outside the United States could only obtain a permanent resident green card if their refugee “admission has not been terminated,” but the Act is unclear as to whether that same requirement applies to asylum seekers who had obtained asylum status within the United States and which was later terminated.
- Reading Materials:
Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223, 2026 WL 1855057 (U.S. June 29, 2026)
- Description: In Palacios v. Liggins, the Court will decide whether “any civil action” under the Equal Access to Justice Act encompasses a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention. In this case, Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios was on government supervision after entering the U.S. from El Salvador. In 2025, Palacios’s supervised release was revoked and ICE officers notified him of the U.S.’s intent to remove him to Mexico rather than El Salvador. While detained, Palacios filed a habeas petition, but his third-country removal claim was dismissed by the district court and affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. Palacios challenges this action, arguing that the procedures ICE followed gave him no real chance to raise fears about the conditions in Mexico before the government sought to deport him there.