Whether the Fourth Amendment bars the government from relying on evidence seized following an arrest that state law prohibits. DECIDED

Whether the Attorney General can create a category of "particularly serious crimes" beyond what Congress has designated as "aggravated felonies" and then deny asylum and witholding of removal to a refugee on the basis of such crimes and, if so, whether the decision to remove someone from the country based on a "particularly serious crime" without any regard for individual mitigating circumstances is subject to judicial review? CASE DISMISSED

The “Riverside Township Illegal Immigration Relief Act” attempted to ban undocumented immigrants from renting, residing, using property or being employed in the New Jersey town.

On April 3, 2009, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties and cooperating counsel at DLA Piper, LLP, settled the Ninth Circuit appeal in Tartakovsky v. Pierre, a proposed class action lawsuit challenging systemic delays in the naturalization process in the San Diego region. As part of the agreement, the ACLU voluntarily dismissed the appeal after obtaining the release of data demonstrating the government's progress in reducing the backlog of naturalization delays based on the “FBI name check” procedure. From August 2007, when the Tartakovsky lawsuit was filed, to February 2009, the number of naturalization applicants in the San Diego region with an FBI name check pending for more than 120 days was reduced from 2,564 to zero.