The immigration lawsuit tracker below covers the active federal cases challenging Trump administration immigration policies through mid-2026, the rulings that have come down, and what is still pending. As of June 2026, the administration faces more than 750 lawsuits across its policy agenda, and courts have at least partially blocked policies in over 150 of them through temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court has taken action in 31 cases, with six still pending.
Individual filings have surged in parallel. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse data show 9,911 new immigration lawsuits in March 2026 alone, a 1,278 percent increase over March 2021. Habeas corpus petitions challenging detention drove most of that growth, rising more than 85-fold year over year to 9,059 filings in a single month. Naturalization suits, typically filed to force action on stalled applications, climbed to 1.8 times their year-earlier level. Habeas cases have been filed in 82 of the country’s 90 federal judicial districts, with the heaviest concentrations in San Antonio, Sacramento, and Houston.
USCIS Processing Freezes for Travel-Ban Countries
Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a 135-page ruling vacating four USCIS policies that had frozen immigration adjudications for nationals of 39 countries. The plaintiff coalition included Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, the Service Employees International Union, and African Communities Together.
The vacated policies together imposed an indefinite nationwide pause on asylum and withholding-of-removal adjudications effective December 2025; suspended processing of green cards, work permits, H-1B extensions, and naturalization for applicants from the 39 countries; ordered re-examination of previously approved benefits for people from those countries who entered on or after January 20, 2021; and directed adjudicators to treat nationality as a “significant negative factor” during discretionary review.
Judge McConnell found that USCIS lacked statutory authority to categorically halt benefits Congress required it to decide, that the global asylum hold violated the statutory 180-day decision mandate, that the nationality-factor policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination, and that the agency’s national security rationale was “pretextual.” The vacatur took immediate nationwide effect, requiring USCIS to resume processing frozen applications unless a higher court issues a stay. An appeal to the First Circuit is expected.
Doe v. Trump
A parallel suit in the District of Massachusetts tackled the same holds on behalf of named individuals. The consolidated cases of Akmurat O. Doe v. Trump and Abeer H. Doe v. Trump, filed by roughly 200 individuals from 20 countries, challenged indefinite “adjudicative holds” on applications from people designated as being from “high-risk” countries. On April 30, 2026, Judge Julia E. Kobick issued a preliminary injunction finding the holds unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. A May 7 order extended the injunction to all 266 named plaintiffs and directed USCIS to lift the holds and stop applying the nationality-factor policy to their files. The government has preserved its right to appeal.
The 75-Country Immigrant Visa Ban
CLINIC v. U.S. Department of State, also captioned CLINIC v. Rubio, was filed February 2, 2026, in the Southern District of New York. It challenges a State Department policy implemented January 21, 2026, that suspended immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries.
Plaintiffs include the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, African Communities Together, U.S. citizens petitioning for family members, and workers with approved employment-based petitions. They are represented by the National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, the Legal Aid Society, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, and Colombo & Hurd.
The complaint alleges the ban is arbitrary and lacks notice-and-comment rulemaking in violation of the APA, that it conflicts with the INA’s requirement of individualized visa evaluations, and that it violates equal protection. Plaintiffs argue “public charge” risk is a pretext for nationality-based discrimination. The case is not a class action, but a favorable ruling would lift the ban for applicants from all 75 countries. It remains active.
BIA Appeals Rule Blocked
The Executive Office for Immigration Review published an Interim Final Rule on February 6, 2026, titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” set to take effect March 9. The rule would have cut the window to file an appeal from 30 days to 10, required summary dismissal unless a majority of permanent BIA members voted to accept the case within 10 days, allowed dismissals before transcripts or records existed, and eliminated reply briefs unless specifically invited.
Five legal services groups sued on February 27 in the District of Columbia: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and the National Immigrant Justice Center, represented by Democracy Forward and the American Immigration Council. On March 8, 2026, the court blocked the rule’s most significant provisions before they could take effect, vacating the 10-day deadline, the summary dismissal default, and the requirement that all issues be raised in the initial notice of appeal. As of April 2026, the case has been stayed pending a formal notice-and-comment period.
Alien Enemies Act Deportations
Proclamation No. 10903, issued in March 2025, invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals identified as members of Tren de Aragua, asserting the gang’s activities constituted an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”
In W.M.M. v. Trump, a split Fifth Circuit panel ruled in September 2025 that the proclamation likely violated the law, finding allegations about a gang did not support an “invasion” finding, and issued an injunction blocking removals. The full Fifth Circuit ordered en banc rehearing and heard argument on January 22, 2026, with judges reportedly divided over whether a president can unilaterally designate threats as an “invasion” under the Act.
The Supreme Court has already intervened in the broader AEA litigation. In Trump v. J.G.G., the Court held in April 2025 that individuals facing removal under the Act are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus petitions filed in the district where they are confined. The Court also enjoined the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under the AEA until the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision. District courts have since issued their own injunctions blocking specific removals and transfers; in one case, a D.C. judge found the government showed “willful disregard” for a prior restraining order, raising the possibility of criminal contempt.
Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court
The January 20, 2025, executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status was blocked by lower courts almost immediately. In Barbara v. Trump, a New Hampshire district court ruled the order likely unconstitutional and established a provisional class covering all affected children.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in December 2025 and held oral arguments on April 1, 2026. Observers reported that a majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s position. A ruling is expected by late June or early July 2026. The order remains unimplemented while the litigation proceeds.
Third-Country Deportations
In D.V.D. v. DHS, filed in the District of Massachusetts, a certified national class challenged a February 18, 2025, DHS directive instructing officers to review the cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention and deport them to countries that had never been designated in their removal proceedings, without notice or an opportunity to contest. Plaintiffs are represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and Human Rights First.
The district court granted a TRO in March 2025, then class certification and a preliminary injunction in April. The First Circuit denied a government stay. The Supreme Court then granted an emergency stay. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on February 25, 2026, declaring the third-country removal policy unlawful and vacating it. That decision is stayed while the First Circuit considers the government’s appeal on an expedited schedule.
Texas SB 4
The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed LML v. Martin on May 4, 2026, in the Western District of Texas, naming Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin as lead defendant. SB 4 created state-level crimes related to unauthorized border crossing and granted state magistrates authority to issue deportation orders.
Plaintiffs argued immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal power, that SB 4 violates the Supremacy Clause, and that the law would produce “widespread racial profiling.” On May 14, 2026, Judge David Alan Ezra granted a preliminary injunction blocking four provisions: the reentry crime (which applied even to people with federal permission to be in the country), the magistrate deportation authority, the crime of failing to comply with such orders, and the requirement that magistrates continue prosecutions even when a defendant has a pending federal immigration case. “It is implausible to imagine each of the fifty United States having their own state immigration policy superseding the powers inherent in the United States as a Nation,” Judge Ezra wrote. The case remains ongoing.
Detention and Bond Hearings
At the Tacoma Immigration Court, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock challenged a blanket policy of denying bond hearings to people who entered without inspection. Plaintiffs argued they are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to individualized bond consideration, rather than subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) as the government claimed.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction for the named plaintiff in April 2025 and certified two classes in May 2025: a Bond Denial Class of individuals detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center and a Bond Appeal Class of all detained noncitizens with pending bond appeals before the BIA. On September 30, 2025, District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright granted summary judgment for the Bond Denial Class, ruling the categorical denial of bond hearings unlawful. The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and class counsel has filed a motion alleging the government is defying the declaratory judgment.
The case sits within a broader pattern. By late November 2025, according to reporting cited by Just Security, at least 225 federal judges had ruled in more than 700 individual cases that the administration’s mandatory detention policy likely violated the law and the right to due process.
Sensitive Locations Enforcement
The rescission of DHS’s long-standing policy restricting immigration enforcement at schools, churches, and hospitals prompted PCUN v. Noem, now PCUN v. Mullin, filed in the District of Oregon. Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and faith organizations argue the January 2025 policy change violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the APA. They allege it has chilled religious participation, caused students to miss school, and deterred patients from seeking medical care.
The government filed a motion to dismiss. An emergency hearing in April 2026 took up both the motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the policy. Both motions remain pending as of mid-2026.
Student and Faculty Speech Deportations
In AAUP v. Rubio, the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association challenged the policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty for pro-Palestinian speech. On September 30, 2025, Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts ruled the policy unconstitutional, declaring that “non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.”
On January 22, 2026, the court issued a remedial order formally vacating the policy under both the First Amendment and the APA. The government filed a notice of appeal and a motion for partial stay in February 2026. AAUP and MESA filed a cross-appeal seeking broader relief. The case is now before the First Circuit.
Other Active Cases
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
In A.C.R. v. Noem, filed in the Eastern District of New York, plaintiffs challenged the termination of a 2022 policy providing deferred action and work permits to young people approved for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. On November 19, 2025, the court stayed the rescission and ordered the government to resume processing under the prior policy. A January 2026 decision narrowed some relief. Both sides have filed appeals now pending before the Second Circuit.
USCIS FOIA Compliance
The long-running Nightingale v. USCIS case, which produced a 2020 permanent injunction requiring USCIS to meet statutory deadlines for FOIA requests covering immigration case files, took a turn in December 2025. A whistleblower disclosure alleged USCIS had been “feigning compliance” by over-redacting documents, prematurely closing cases to inflate completion statistics, and rejecting requests on technicalities. The agency’s own compliance report claimed a 99 percent on-time rate, which the whistleblower characterized as manufactured. Senator Dick Durbin described the agency as “cooking the numbers.” Class counsel has notified the district court, and discovery and status conferences are ongoing as of April 2026.
Humanitarian Parole Programs
In Svitlana Doe v. Noem, beneficiaries of parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans challenged the termination of their parole grants. A district court initially stayed the termination, but the Court of Appeals vacated that order and remanded in September 2025. Separately, in Doe v. Noem, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed with revoking a humanitarian program and removing deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans, though the case remains active with some aspects of the policy halted.
Children’s Asylum Rights
In J.O.P. v. DHS, a settlement approved in November 2024 requires the government to adjudicate certain children’s asylum applications before removing them. On April 23, 2025, a Maryland federal court enforced the settlement, ruling DHS cannot deport class members who have not yet received a merits decision on their asylum claims. The settlement is scheduled to terminate in May 2026, but class counsel has moved for an extension, with the motion pending.