1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those…

Immigration Law

Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those who received conditional approval, 9th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to stop approving new refugees for U.S. admission during a legal challenge but said the government can’t keep out refugees who received conditional approval before the resettlement program was halted Jan. 20.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled on the government’s emergency motion in a March 25 order, report the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a March 25 press release.

In a Feb. 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, according to prior coverage by the New York Times. Whitehead said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the order was an “effective nullification of congressional will.”

On Monday evening, Whitehead issued a second preliminary injunction that orders the government to reinstate canceled cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies, according to another March 25 press release.

The legal challenge was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of Church World Service; HIAS, a Jewish resettlement agency; Lutheran Community Services Northwest; and nine people affected by the ban.

“The court affirmed that the government must continue processing and admitting eligible refugees whose lives were upended by President Trump’s refugee ban,” said Melissa Keaney, senior supervising attorney for litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, in a press release. “We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States and look forward to arguing this case in full.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Client’s employees seek approval of data…

Cybersecurity

Client’s employees seek approval of data breach settlement after BigLaw firm hack

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 11, 2024, 9:20 am CDT

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and its client Mondelez Global have agreed to pay $750,000 to settle claims by Mondelez employees whose private information may have been compromised in a hack of the law firm’s network.

A class of about 53,000 current and former Mondelez employees asked U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso to preliminarily approve the settlement in an Oct. 4 memorandum of law.

Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

Attorney fees of up to $250,000 for class counsel would come from the settlement fund. Individual plaintiffs could seek money for time spent responding to the breach, reimbursement of up to $7,000 for out-of-pocket losses and free credit monitoring. Class members could elect instead to seek a pro rata cash payment from the settlement fund.

Bryan Cave and Mondelez have both implemented security improvements to protect against another security breach, the plaintiffs said in the request.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Group representing immigration judges told…

Immigration Law

Group representing immigration judges told to get approval before speaking publicly

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2024, 3:28 pm CST

A group representing immigration judges has spoken out in the past to criticize court administration and advocate for more independence.

But now, representatives for the National Association of Immigration Judges can’t speak to Congress, journalists and professional forums without Department of Justice approval, report the Associated Press and Government Executive. They are also banned from writing articles and blog posts absent approval.

The ban was imposed in a Feb. 15 directive by Judge Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge of the DOJ’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is the DOJ office that oversees the immigration court system.

McNulty said any bargaining agreement that preserved a right to speak out is no longer valid because the National Association of Immigration Judges lost its recognition as a union in November 2020. The National Association of Immigration Judges is appealing that decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Th AP reached out to union leaders Mimi Tsankov and Samuel B. Cole for comment. They said they were not permitted to comment without approval.

Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, called the directive “pretty draconian” and “pretty unprecedented” in an interview with Government Executive. The federation is the parent union to the National Association of Immigration Judges.