Cases compared
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement vs. Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos vs. In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner
Immigration cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1223No. 25-1415No. 25-6193
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement | Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos | In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1223 | 25-1415 | 25-6193 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | Whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention? | 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? | 1. According to the principles established in In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458 (1909), is a writ of mandamus the appropriate remedy for compelling a Circuit court to remand a case to state court when the removal was improper? 2. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated in Caterpillar INC. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), can an employer and union successfully remove a case to federal court if their only argument for federal jurisdiction is a defense of complete preemption under section 301 of the LMRA? 3. What are the jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts for section 301 labor cases, as defined by concurrent jurisdiction recognized in Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney 368 U.S. 502 (1962)? 4. Does intentional misrepresentation, false and misleading statements to establish original jurisdiction meet the high bar for proving fraud upon the court, or is it a lesser form of misconduct? |
| Summary | This case asks whether a person who wins a habeas corpus challenge to civil immigration detention may recover attorney’s fees and costs from the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Court will decide whether such a habeas case counts as a “civil action” under that law. | 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. | Gerald Nelson asks the Supreme Court to review whether a federal circuit court should have ordered a case returned to state court after its removal to federal court. The petition raises questions about federal jurisdiction over labor claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the availability of mandamus to require remand, and alleged misrepresentations concerning jurisdiction. |
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.