Changeflow GovPing Federal Courts Ninth Circuit Vacates Submission, Orders Supple...
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Ninth Circuit Vacates Submission, Orders Supplemental Briefs on Rule Consistency

Favicon for www.ca9.uscourts.gov 9th Circuit Opinions
Filed February 18th, 2026
Detected February 19th, 2026
Email

Summary

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its submission in Garcia Morales v. Bondi, ordering parties to file supplemental briefs by March 13, 2026. The briefs must address the consistency of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule with the Immigration and Nationality Act. Amici curiae are also invited to submit briefs.

What changed

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated its submission in the case of Garcia Morales v. Bondi (No. 25-1760) and scheduled a new oral argument for the week of March 23, 2026. The court is requiring both the petitioners and the respondent, the Attorney General, to submit supplemental briefs of no more than fifteen pages by Friday, March 13, 2026. These briefs must specifically address whether the "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule (8 C.F.R. § 1208.33(a)) is consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1158).

This action signals a significant judicial review of a key immigration regulation. Regulated entities and legal professionals involved in immigration law should closely monitor this case. The court is also inviting amici curiae to submit briefs on the same issue by the March 13, 2026 deadline. The outcome of this review could have substantial implications for the interpretation and application of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, potentially impacting asylum and immigration proceedings.

What to do next

  1. File supplemental briefs addressing rule consistency by March 13, 2026
  2. Monitor case developments regarding the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule

Source document (simplified)

FOR PUBLI CATION UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEAL S FOR THE NI NTH CIRCUIT LESTER J GARCI A MOR ALES; SHEY LA MONROY T AY; L. J. I. G. M.; I. G. M.; J. G. M., Petitioners, v. PAMELA BO NDI, Attorne y General, Respondent. No. 25 -17 60 Agency Nos. A240-533-133 A240-533-134 A240-533-135 A240-533-137 A245-371-133 ORDER Before: Richar d A. Paez and Pa trick J. Bumata y, Circuit J udges, and M ustafa T. Kasubhai, Di strict Judge. * Submission for this case is vacated. The Clerk is directed to reschedule o ral argument to the week of March 23, 2026 in Pasadena, California. The Clerk shall reschedule arg ument for a dat e convenient for the Court a nd parties. The parties are or dered to file su pplemental brie fs of no more tha n fifteen pages addressing whether the Circumven tion o f Lawful Pathways rule, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.33(a), is consiste nt t he Immigration and N ationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158. The parties shall fi le their br iefs no later t han Friday, March 13, 2026. * The Honorable M ustafa T. Kasu bhai, United States Distric t Judge for the D istrict of Ore gon, sitting by designa tion. FILED FEB 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 25 -1760 The court also invites briefs from amici curiae addressing the same question as the p arties. Any person or enti ty wishing to file a brief as an amicus curiae in response t o thi s order is gran ted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). Briefs responding to this order s hall be filed no l ater than Friday, March 13, 2026 a nd shall not exceed fiftee n pages.

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
Federal and State Courts
Filed
February 18th, 2026
Compliance deadline
March 13th, 2026 (1 days ago)
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive

Who this affects

Applies to
Government agencies Legal professionals
Geographic scope
National (US)

Taxonomy

Primary area
Immigration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Administrative Law Judicial Review

Get Federal Courts alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when 9th Circuit Opinions publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.