The War on Drugs has long impacted immigrant communities. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation hugely expanding the numbers of immigrants subject to mandatory detention, deportation, and denial of lawful status based on state drug offenses. Successive administrations have sought to apply the drug provisions of immigration laws extremely aggressively.
IDP works with litigants before the federal courts and immigration agencies to narrow the scope of drug-related laws used to detain and deport immigrants, including the controlled substance offense and drug trafficking aggravated felony grounds of removability.
- Mellouli v. Lynch: Further Support for a Strict Categorical Approach for Determining Removability under Drug Deportation and Other Conviction-Based Removal Grounds (June 8, 2015, by IDP and NIP-NLG)
- The Realistic Probability Standard: Fighting Government Efforts to Use It to Undermine the Categorical Approach (Nov. 5, 2014, by IDP and NIP-NLG)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder: Implications for Drug Charges and Other Issues Involving the Categorical Approach (May 2, 2013, by IDP, NIP-NLG, and AIC)
- Multiple Drug Possession Cases after Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (June 21, 2010, by IDP)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015): Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, IDP and NIP-NLG in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)
- Brief of IDP submitted before New York City’s Immigration Court (Amicus counsel NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010): Brief of NACDL, NLADA, IDP, ILRC, and NIP-NLG in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
- Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013): Brief of IDP and immigration and criminal defense organizations in Support of Petitioner (Amicus counsel Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, IDP)
- Brief of IDP and immigration and criminal defense organizations in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Amicus counsel Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, IDP)