(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a Maryland public monument in the shape of a 32-foot tall Latin cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. A humanist group and others argued that the memorial to soldiers who died in World War I must be removed because of the crucifix shape. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court; however, only certain portions of his opinion received support from a majority of the justices.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified when the statute of limitations begins to run on a fabricated-evidence claim. Held that the clock started when the criminal proceedings terminated in the defendant's favor -- that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that Congress may lawfully delegate to the Attorney General the authority to prescribe certain sex-offender registration rules. The dispute here involved the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from transferring its legislative power to another branch of government. Justice Kagan announced the Court's judgment and delivered a plurality opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements that promote free goods, such as no-cost magazine subscriptions and catalogs. The specific issue here had to do with whether the district court was required to adopt the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it found the question difficult to answer, and remanded with directions for the lower courts to resolve two preliminary issues. Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Interpreted a federal statute that prohibits felons and certain other individuals from knowingly possessing firearms. Held that the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the State of Mississippi's peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was motivated by discriminatory intent. Justice Kavanaugh, who delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court, explicitly stated that the decision broke no new legal ground but rather simply reinforced the Batson decision, in this case involving a man's sixth murder trial (the other five had ended in hung juries or else been reversed on appeal).

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. Defendants sought disclosure, through a FOIA request, of names and addresses of retail stores who participated in the national food stamp program. Plaintiff refused to provide that information stating that substantive competitive harm would be caused. The district court disagreed with plaintiff and ordered disclosure. The US Supreme Court reversed and held that data provided under an assurance of privacy was an exemption to a FOIA request.

(United States Supreme Court) - Affirmed in part. Defendants were charged with Hobbs Act robbery and also charged under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924c which authorizes heightened penalties for using a weapon. The Fifth Circuit held that Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide a reliable way to determine which crimes would qualify for heightened penalties. The US Supreme Court agreed holding that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutional for vagueness and remanded the case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a mariner may not recover punitive damages on a claim that he was injured as a result of the unseaworthy condition of the vessel. After a hatch blew open and injured his hand, the deckhand filed suit under federal maritime law and sought punitive damages, among other things. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that punitive damages are unavailable in unseaworthiness actions. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a provision of the federal supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. section 3583(k). That section imposes mandatory minimum five-year sentences when a judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant on supervised release committed one of several enumerated offenses, including possession of child pornography. Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and delivered a plurality opinion on behalf of himself and three justices. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a Tennessee requirement that applicants for a license to operate a retail liquor store have resided in the State for the prior two years. Held that the residency requirement violates the Commerce Clause because it blatantly favors the State's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, and further held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not save the state law. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiffs as voters in North Carolina and Maryland filed suit challenging congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that are beyond the reach of the federal courts.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the government's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act. However, the sole stated reason for reinstating the question "seems to have been contrived," and therefore it was appropriate to remand the case back to the agency on that ground. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion, some portions of which were unanimous while others received the support of only four justices in various groupings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that when a motorist suspected of drunk driving is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered a plurality opinion, joined by three other justices. Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Approved the Board of Immigration Appeals' practice of refusing to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, denied a petition for review filed by an asylum seeker who had presented a new argument regarding particular social groups to the Board, which refused to consider it.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a Chinese citizen's claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture based on evidence that he is a practicing Christian and reports that Christians are persecuted and tortured in China. Granted his petition for review in relevant part and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a criminal defendant who said he was never advised about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea was entitled to a hearing on whether to allow him to vacate his plea.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Granted a lawful permanent resident's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Held that his Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of several Xanax pills without a prescription did not render him removable.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Rejected a Honduras national's claim that he was falsely imprisoned by federal immigration authorities. Affirmed summary judgment for the U.S.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the statute of limitations expired on a woman's action seeking the issuance of a certificate of citizenship. The five-year clock began running in 2008 when her first request for citizenship was denied. She was born in Mexico to an American father and a Mexican mother.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an immigration judge did not abuse her discretion by denying a continuance. The immigrant wanted to delay his removal hearing in order to seek lawful permanent residence status based on a brief marriage to a U.S. citizen that immigration authorities had already found to be a sham.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an immigration matter, held that a Honduran woman who prevailed on a petition for review was not entitled to recover attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government's position was substantially justified, in this case involving a perceived-homosexuality asylum claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied an immigrant's petition for review of a removal decision, in a case involving specific immigration provisions affecting the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a U.S. territory. The Philippines citizen had arrived there as a lawful guest worker.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted an alien's petition for review of a removal decision. Held that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were not permitted to carry out preplanned mass detentions, interrogations and arrests at a factory without individualized reasonable suspicion. Remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to dismiss the Mexican citizen's removal proceeding without prejudice.

(United States DC Circuit) - In an immigration case, struck down as unconstitutional a federal policy that bars unaccompanied alien children in government custody who are pregnant from obtaining an abortion. Upheld a preliminary injunction in relevant part, in this class action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. Rejected the defendant's argument that his confession was admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an Iranian national may not appeal the revocation of his petition for conditional permanent residency. He had applied under the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for immigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. Affirmed the ruling below, which concluded that Congress has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations of visa petitions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that a lawful permanent resident was ineligible for cancellation of removal. He had been found removable based on his New York convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. Denied the Irish citizen's petition for review.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed to allow withdrawal of guilty pleas. A new law was passed, Pen. Code Sec. 1473.7, that allowed a conviction to be vacated when there was no meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The court held that there did not have to be proof of actual ineffective assistance of counsel, but merely a preponderance of the evidence.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment against Defendant, Homeland Security, claiming that DHS improperly denied application for legal permanent resident. Appellate court held that Plaintiff failed to state a legally cognizable claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to vacate a conviction under penal Code Section 1473.7. Defendant contended that her trial counsel failed to property advise her of adverse immigration consequences of plea agreement. Appeals court held that the evidence did not support her contention.

(United States Second Circuit) - Granted. Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying Plaintiff application for asylum. Plaintiff demonstrated changed circumstances and BIA was required to consider entire application. Remand application to BIA for limited purpose of granting application.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant plead guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens. He claimed district court erred by applying sentence enhancements. Appeals court found no error.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision to remove Plaintiff from the United States. The appeals court held that Plaintiff's conviction for indecent exposure was a crime involving moral turpitude and held that the BIA decision in Matter of Cortes Medina applied retroactively to Plaintiff making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Granted petition. Vacated removal order. Remanded. Plaintiff challenged denial of application for asylum. The immigration Judge denied application stating that it was not credible finding that there were inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony. The Appeals court held that two of the purported inconsistent statements were not inconsistent at all and the third inconsistency did not justify an adverse ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant, a Turkish national, was convicted for taking action to prevent his removal from the United States. While U.S. officers were escorting Defendant onto a flight to Turkey, he vigorously resisted the officers and the Airline refused to allow him to board because of his disruptive behavior.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Consolidated petition for review. Motion to reconsider denied. Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding an immigration judge’s in absentia removal order appropriate, where defendant waited 10 years before filing the motion to reopen his proceedings and did not meet the standard for equitable tolling based on limited English proficiency, nor meet the requirements for a sua sponte request based on lack of notice and ineffective counsel.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration decision denied, where Defendant could not show legal or constitutional reasons to provide court the jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. An ambiguous record regarding a state law conviction does not constitute a predicate offense that would bar eligibility for a cancellation of removal, overruling Young v. Holder, where Petitioner argued previous conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony did not reference a specific controlled substance.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied in part, dismissed in part. A Haitian national's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals denial of asylum and cancellation of removal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process were denied.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective counsel granted in part and denied in part. BIA applied a “clear probability” standard, rather than a “more likely than not” standard, when considering protection under the Convention Against Torture Act. Remanded to district court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Nothing in N.Y.C.C.’s record required the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals to conclude past persecution or reasonable fear of future persecution, where Petitioner could not show that she was unable to leave her abusive relationship, nor prove that she was the mother of a cartel member’s child.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. An in absentia order of removal could not be overturned because it was not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational it was arbitrary.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Plaintiff petitioned for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision for removal based on a judgment for Contempt of Court for violating a restraining order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a misdemeanor conviction for eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 USC section 1325. Held that an alien that crosses into this country at a non-designated place of entry is not guilty of eluding examination, because such conduct must occur at a designated examination place.