Cases compared
Deborah Kollman, as Executor of the Estate of Stephanie A. Smith, Petitioner v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hospital, LLC, et al. vs. Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos vs. Tamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General
Immigration cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1352No. 25-1415No. 25-842
Side by side
| Fact | Deborah Kollman, as Executor of the Estate of Stephanie A. Smith, Petitioner v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hospital, LLC, et al. | Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos | Tamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1352 | 25-1415 | 25-842 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | Argued Nov 30, 2026 |
| Question presented | 1. When a case is timely filed in state court and then removed to federal court, does the tolling provision in § 1367(d) stop the clock on the limitations period for any state-law claims as of the time the plaintiff initially, and timely, filed the claim in state court? 2. Or, does the clock stop only once the claim is pending in federal court, even if removal to federal court is beyond the plaintiff’s control? | 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondents, are present in the United States without having been admitted? 2. Whether detaining respondents without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings comports with due process? | Whether noncitizens who were "granted asylum," but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)? |
| Summary | The case concerns when the statute of limitations is paused for state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) after a lawsuit filed in state court is removed to federal court. The petitioner argues that the pause should begin when the claim was timely filed in state court, rather than only when it reaches federal court through removal. | This pending case concerns whether federal immigration law requires immigration officials to detain certain noncitizens who are in the United States without formal admission while their removal cases are pending. It also asks whether holding those individuals without a bond hearing during those proceedings violates the Constitution's due process guarantee. | The Court will decide whether a noncitizen whose asylum was later terminated can still seek lawful permanent resident status based on having previously been granted asylum. The case concerns a split among federal appeals courts over the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.