Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 263: Listen and Learn -- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
At the end of its 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts do not have equity power to issue so-called “universal” (also known as “nationwide”) injunctions. At issue in...more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 27 invalidating universal injunctions as the remedy imposed by three federal district courts that had determined that President Trump’s Executive Order limiting...more
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision on review of three federal court orders that have blocked—on a nationwide basis—implementation of President Trump’s executive order restricting so-called “birthright...more
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Trump v. Casa staying the injunctions previously blocking President Trump’s Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship as applied beyond the...more
The Supreme Court agreed to a partial stay to severely limit universal injunctions issued by district court judges as part of ongoing litigation over President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) on birthright citizenship —...more
In the waning days of the Court’s session this year, several blockbuster decisions were issued. A long-awaited decision regarding birthright citizenship was issued, but did not address the merits of the case itself. In the...more
In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court partially stayed the nationwide injunctions issued by three district courts against enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) fundamentally changing birthright...more
As the academic year is now wrapping up, we hope that the final weeks of school have been relatively stress free, and that our clients are now looking forward to some slower summer days. Here at Franczek, we have continued to...more
The short answer is that the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing (whose oral argument is scheduled for May 15 at 10 am) is of immense importance to all stakeholders in the consumer financial services industry. We will...more
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aiming to narrow the application of birthright citizenship in the United States. The...more
The Trump Administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the executive order (EO) to end birthright citizenship. Following his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, President...more
As one of his first acts in office, on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which asserts that citizenship may only be...more
Trump v. New York, No. 20-366: In July 2020, the President of the United States issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce (who is tasked with taking the census and reporting the tabulation to the President, who in turn...more
On June 18, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration's termination of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program violated Federal law....more
Court Decision - On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision in 2017 to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the...more
The Trump administration has already announced its goal to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy commenced on June 15, 2012 by President Obama within the next six months post the decision of the U.S....more
In a landmark 5–4 decision issued June 18, the US Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful agency action....more
As previously reported by Mintz, last week the U.S. Supreme Court upheld three lower court rulings, holding that President Trump’s 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court allows DACA to proceed on the grounds that DHS did not meet the regulatory Administrative Procedures Act requirements in rescinding the program. The Court did not rule on the legality of...more
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Trump administration did not properly terminate the DACA program under the APA. - The DACA program is restored to its full form, as it existed prior to the rescission in 2017. -...more
On Thursday, June 18, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, known as...more
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in DHS v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, effectively blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) attempt to end...more
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587; Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588; Wolf v. Vidal, No. 18-589: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood...more
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on June 18, 2020, finding that the Department of Homeland Security’s actions in retracting the immigration relief program...more
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) choice to rescind the immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). The...more