Department of Homeland Security v. New York, No. 20-449.
The Immigration and Nationality Act makes aliens inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” The Department of Homeland Security promulgated a regulation broadening the definition of “public charge,” to include participants in more public benefits programs than previously.
- Do States, and charitable organizations that serve immigrants, have standing to challenge the regulation’s validity under the Administrative Procedure Act?
- Was the district court correct to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the regulation?
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189.
Under 28 U.S.C. 1447, a federal court’s order remanding a removed case back to state court “is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise” — unless the case was “removed pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] 1442 or 1443.” Sections 1442 and 1443 pertain respectively to certain claims against federal officers and certain civil-rights claims. Is an appeal pursuant to that exception limited to the federal-officer or civil-rights ground for removal, or may it also seek review of other grounds for remand that were included in the same remand order?
Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709.
When an appellate court applies plain-error review, may it consider matters outside the trial record in order to determine whether the alleged error prejudiced the appellant?
City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, LP, No. 20-334.
When a party seeks to recover costs from the other side and the requested costs are indeed taxable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e), does the district court have any discretion to deny or reduce the award?
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., No. 20-601.
When a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute and the original state defendant will not defend the statute, should the state’s attorney general be allowed to intervene as a defendant?