⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears A.C.R. v. Mullin. Nine immigrant youth and two legal-services organizations sued after the government ended a deferred-action policy. The young people had Special Immigrant Juvenile classification, available to certain children who experienced parental abuse, neglect or abandonment. That classification offers a path to a green card, but visa backlogs can mean years of waiting. Deferred action temporarily postpones deportation; it does not grant permanent immigration status. Recipients may apply for work authorization. Under the 2022 policy, eligible young people were automatically considered for deferred action, and their approved classification counted as a strong positive factor. After the government rescinded the policy in 2025, a district judge paused that decision but did not fully restore the favorable standard. The young people are appealing that limit, not demanding automatic approval for everyone. Their lawyer will argue that the old policy must be restored as a whole, and that this appeal can still help people denied its protection. The government will argue that another policy issued in 2026 overtook the challenged decision, making the appeal moot, and that the old manual was not legally binding. Mootness asks whether there is still a live dispute the court can remedy. The Accardi doctrine generally requires agencies to follow their own existing procedures.

A.C.R. v. Mullin (No. 26-236) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 19, 2026.