Amici Brief:  Rankine v. Reno (March 2002)
2nd Circuit:  In Rankine, 319 F3d 93 (2nd Cir 2003), the Second Circuit declined to extend to individuals who were convicted after trial the Supreme Court decision in INS v. St. Cyr , which held that 1996 immigration law amendments barring relief from deportation should not be applied to individuals who agreed to plead guilty to deportable offenses prior to the amendments.  IDP’s amicus brief had urged such an extension.  IDP and fellow amicus The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York were represented by Paul A. Engelmayer, Christopher J. Meade and Katherine R. Goldstein of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering LLP.

Amici Brief:  INS v. St. Cyr (U.S. Supreme Court 2000)
U.S. Supreme Court: This brief addresses the government's retroactive application of 1996 amendments restricting or eliminating relief from deportation to lawful permanent resident immigrants who pled guilty to deportable offenses prior to the enactment dates of these amendments. The Supreme Court decision is at 533 US 289 (2001).

Amici Brief:  Pottinger v. Reno (2nd Circuit 2000)
2nd Circuit:  This brief addresses the question of whether there is impermissible retroactive effect when the government applies 1996 immigration amendments (AEDPA) barring relief from deportation to individuals whose criminal convictions or conduct underlying the removal charge preceded enactment of these amendments.

Amici Brief:  Zgombic v Farquharson (2nd Circuit 2000)
2nd Circuit:  This brief addresses whether there is impermissible retroactive effect when the government applies 1996 immigration amendments (AEDPA and IIRIRA) barring relief from removal to an individual whose criminal conduct underlying the removal charge preceded enactment of these amendments.

IDP Litigation - Retroactivity

Amici Brief:  Bell v. Ashcroft (May 2004)
2nd Circuit: IDP, with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, submitted an amicus brief in Bell v. Ashcroft to address the question of whether the 2001 Supreme Court decision in INS v. St. Cyr (invalidating retroactive application of 1996 immigration law amendments) requires that the Second Circuit revisit the question of whether 1990 immigration law amendments barring relief from deportation for persons convicted of aggravated felonies for which they served more than five years in prison should be applied to individuals who agreed to plead guilty to deportable offenses prior to the 1990 amendments.  Amici were represented by Paul A. Engelmayer and Verity Winship of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering LLP.

Amici Brief:  Ponnapula v. Ashcroft (November 2003)
3rd Circuit: In Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480 (3rd Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals extended to individuals who were convicted after trialthe Supreme Court decision in INS v. St. Cyr, which held that 1996 immigration law amendments barring relief from deportation should not be applied to individuals who agreed to plead guilty to deportable offenses prior to the amendments.  IDP, with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, had submitted a brief in Ponnapula urging such extension.  IDP and NACDL were represented by Paul A. Engelmayer, Christopher J. Meade and Katherine R. Goldstein of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering LLP.

Amici Brief:  Calcano-Martinez v. INS
2nd Circuit:  This brief addresses whether there is impermissible retroactive effect when the government applies 1996 immigration amendments (AEDPA and IIRIRA) barring relief from removal to individuals whose criminal convictions or conduct underlying the removal charge preceded enactment of these amendments.  The Supreme Court decision is at 533 US 348 (2001).