Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Plus, bar DOL from rescinding LCAs and PERMs based on EO and award attorneys' fee to each plaintiff. That's the end of my summary. I'll update you as there is news in this case. Two more travel ban cases coming this week. 19
Oh, my favorite part about this case - the name. Panda v. Wolf. I'm serious. Go pandas! 20
I'm bummed out that the name of the case has been altered to Panda v Pompeio since DHS Secretary Chad Wolf has been switched to the second defendant.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with (((Greg Siskind)))

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gsiskind see all

Profile picture
(((Greg Siskind)))
@gsiskind
Here’s my summary of the case of Aker v. Trump. I’m happy to say that Siskind Susser is 1 of 3 firms that teamed up to file this pro bono case on behalf of people selected for Diversity Visas in the annual drawing & who are now ineligible because of the 4/22 & 6/22 visa bans. 1
The other two firms are @Immigrant_Atty and @KuckBaxter. These two firms have amazing teams and I am glad to be working with them on this case. 2
This case focuses on one group impacted by the ban and it has the unique issue of these visas disappearing if they are not issued by 9/30. The suit I’m expecting to be filed tomorrow will be much broader and cover all categories affected by the 4/22 and 6/22 bans. 3
Read 37 tweets
Profile picture
(((Greg Siskind)))
@gsiskind
The hearing has begun for Harvard v. DHS.
Breaking - GOVT IS RESCINDING
Returning to March 9th flexible addendum. The 7/6 Directive is dead.
Read 5 tweets
Profile picture
(((Greg Siskind)))
@gsiskind
The following thread is a summary and comments regarding the DHS’ opposition to a temporary restraining order in the Harvard v. DHS suit. Harvard is challenging the new policy to bar F-1s from the US if their schools are all online during the pandemic. 1
DHS starts out with a “how dare they” defiant approach. “Petitioners ask this court to rewrite the black-letter requirements of the law and bind the enforcement authority of the federal government, perversely as a consequence of the leniency recently exercised” by ICE. 2
The heart of their argument is that Harvard disagrees with ICE’s exercise of discretion, but such discretion is not a violation of law. 3
Read 33 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!