The Supreme Court has held that the states of Texas and Louisiana have no standing to challenge the Executive Branch’s prosecutorial discretion in enforcing immigration law. In its decision, the Court found that the states cannot challenge the Administration’s Sept. 30, 2021, memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” because, even if injured monetarily by the government’s immigration enforcement policies, the states themselves are not being arrested or threatened with arrest under those policies.
Resources on Prosecutorial Discretion
You may search for resources either by title or by month and year.
Last updated on
Last updated on
An August 2021 policy from ICE titled “Using a Victim-Centered Approach with Noncitizen Crime Victims” provides important protections to noncitizen crime victims, including those with pending or approved applications for certain humanitarian immigration benefits.
Last updated on
On May 27, 2021, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, Principal Legal Advisor John D. Trasviña issued a memo to ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, or OPLA, attorneys providing interim guidance on exercising prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings. The memo encourages OPLA attorneys to focus agency resources on cases that fall within one of three priority categories, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion in non-priority cases.
Last updated on
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration joined in requesting DHS extend life-saving protections for Bahamians who seek safety in the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian. Specifically, the organizations request DHS designate Temporary Protected Status for the Bahamas and consider using other humanitarian protections, including prosecutorial discretion and humanitarian parole, for hurricane evacuees.
Last updated on
On Sept. 18, 2018, Attorney General (AG) Jefferson Sessions, in two cases he referred to himself, held that immigration judges (IJs) may dismiss or terminate removal proceedings only where the regulations expressly allow or if the charges of removability against a respondent have not been sustained. Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018).
Last updated on
On August 16, 2018, Attorney General Jefferson Sessions issued Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), a precedent decision about how immigration judges (IJs) should decide certain motions for a continuance “to await the resolution of a collateral matter.” The decision uses the term “collateral matter” to refer to filings with U.S.
