BRIEF OF FORMER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE "Amici are former officials of the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security...
Kumar v. Garland "Sandeep Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal of the decision by the...
Save Jobs USA v. DHS "The Department of Homeland Security issued a rule that allows certain visa holders to work in the United States. Save Jobs USA challenged the rule, arguing that DHS exceeded...
BIB Daily presents bimonthly PERM practice tips from Ron Wada , member of the Editorial Board for Bender’s Immigration Bulletin and author of the 10+ year series of BALCA review articles, “Shaping...
USA v. Abbott Majority: "[W]e hold that the district court clearly erred in finding that the United States will likely prove that the barrier is in a navigable stretch of the Rio Grande." ...
USA v. Abbott
Majority: "[W]e hold that the district court clearly erred in finding that the United States will likely prove that the barrier is in a navigable stretch of the Rio Grande."
Dissents: "The majority’s novel test not only departs from precedent, but also creates a definition of navigability specific to rivers that inexplicably excludes trade and travel between states or foreign countries that crosses rivers. This, in turn, would defeat congressional purpose to prevent obstructions to that commerce—and render the federal government powerless to remove obstructions in rivers that serve as interstate or, like the Rio Grande, international boundaries. Because such a reduction of our definition of the “waters of the United States” is both unsupported and unworkable, I respectfully dissent. ... The district court relied on all the evidence discussed herein to find that the balance of hardships favors the United States. It considered the threat to navigation and federal government operations on the Rio Grande, as well as the potential threat to human life the floating barrier created. All the district court’s findings of fact were well supported by the record, and its conclusion that the equities favor issuance of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. VI The majority errs in reversing the district court’s decision. In doing so, it disregards the relevant standard of review, rejects the ample evidence put forth by the United States, and relies on unsupported reasoning. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."
See also: