Arizona Court Rules Litigating Litigation 
SCOTUSBlog
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a dispute over whether a group of states, led by Arizona, can defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration declined to do so. The oral argument in Arizona v. immigration court.
JURIST
JUNE 15, 2022
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a case in which Republican-led states were attempting to defend a Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration declined to do so. In a brief order, the court dismissed Arizona v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 23, 2022
Two lower courts had rejected the legislators’ request, reasoning that the state’s Democratic attorney general and the board of elections were already defending the law, but the justices reversed those rulings. And in Arizona v. But that case is not this case,” Gorsuch stressed. In Cameron v.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 19, 2022
Share Nineteen states came to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to keep in place a Trump-era policy that allows immigration officials to quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the U.S. The administrative stay means that the policy will not automatically terminate on Wednesday if the justices need more time to rule.
SCOTUSBlog
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving whether a group of states can defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration refused to do so. After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v.
SCOTUSBlog
JULY 21, 2022
The justices will hear the case in late November without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in. The justices left in place a district-court ruling striking down the policy, which means that the Biden administration cannot implement it while it waits for the Supreme Court to hear argument and issue a decision.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 9, 2021
Arizona Solicitor General Brunn Roysden III started out, predictably, by emphasizing AEDPA’s text, arguing that the issue before the court is “fundamentally a question of statutory interpretation.” The question raised in Shinn v. Kavanaugh shot back, “Assuming we don’t do that, what’s your next answer?”.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
93 
Let's personalize your content