When a new rule, a court decision or a policy shift changes the calculus for someone in the middle of a case, we read the text at the source and write what it means in practice. Each analysis gives its source, its date, and what remains unsettled.
A 1996 statute conditions federal funding for two assistance programs on the state reporting to the federal government anyone it knows to be unlawfully present. Since 1998 that duty had been read as limited to the welfare agency. On September 1, 2026 the Justice Department withdrew that reading and now holds that the duty reaches every agency of the state. This text explains where the rule comes from, what the new reading changes in practice, and what stays the same.
Read → Birthright citizenshipA federal judge in Maryland barred U.S. government agencies from applying Executive Order 14418, of August 2026, against a defined group of children born in the United States. The group includes children of a mother who was in the country on a temporary visa on the day of birth. The ruling is preliminary, reaches only those inside the group, and did not rule in the abstract on the order's categories. This text explains how the group is defined, what the ruling does and what it does not do.
Read → Visa · Free speechOn 28 August 2026, a federal judge in California declared that two rules of the immigration statute violate the Constitution when used because of what a person says, writes or publishes. The decision is solid in its reasoning and limited in its effect: it is a declaration, not an order, it stands as a trial court ruling, and it may be appealed. This text explains what it reaches, what it does not, and what remains in force meanwhile.
Read → Public charge · The 75-country ruleIn August 2026, four federal judges ruled against the rule directing the refusal of green cards to people from 75 countries, Brazil among them. All sided with the applicants, and no two rulings protect the same people. This text explains, in plain language, what applies today and what to do if your case has stalled.
Read → Green card · Foreign travelIn June 2026, the Supreme Court held that the border officer does not need strong proof that a crime occurred in order to stop treating a permanent resident as someone who already lives in the country. For those who travel with no criminal record, nothing changes. For those with an open case, a great deal does.
Read → B-1/B-2 · Executive orderIn August 2026 the President signed an executive order against so-called birth tourism, and the State Department created a task force that has already revoked more than 600 visas. But the most serious consequence for travellers is not in the order: it is in an old statutory rule, one with no expiry.
Read → H-1B · Proposed feeThe Government has proposed charging US$ 103,265 for every H-1B petition competing in the annual lottery. It is still only a proposal, and public comments run to 24 September 2026. What is new is not the amount: it is that the fee would fund six federal agencies, not just the one deciding the petition.
Read → BIA · Motion to reopenIn August 2026, the administrative immigration appeals body held that a person with a removal order may ask to reopen the case only once, and that a justified delay does not restore that chance. But the ruling does not apply equally across the country, and two other doors remain open.
Read → Public charge · 2026 ruleUntil 17 September 2026, only four benefits count against a green card applicant. From the 18th, almost any benefit that depends on your income counts, and even applying without receiving counts. The date you mail your application decides which of the two rules applies to you.
Read →