The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling Thursday in a closely watched immigration case brought by a coalition of immigrant rights organizations against the Department of Homeland Security and its leadership.
In *Solutions in Hometown Connections v. Kristi Noem*, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to uphold the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's decision in favor of the federal defendants. The case was argued Oct. 23, 2025, and decided Jan. 23, 2026.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Allison Jones Rushing. Judge Toby Heytens dissented from the majority's holding.
The lawsuit was filed by ten immigrant advocacy organizations challenging policies implemented under DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph B. Edlow. The plaintiff organizations span the country and include Solutions in Hometown Connections, Central American Resource Center, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Community Center for Immigrants, Inc.
Other plaintiffs in the case include English Skills Learning Center, Michigan Organizing Project operating as Michigan United, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia operating as HIAS Pennsylvania, Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, Instituto del Progreso Latino, and Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.
The case originated in the District of Maryland at Greenbelt, where District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby presided over the initial proceedings. The case was designated as 8:25-cv-00885-LKG in the district court.
Two research organizations filed amicus briefs supporting the appellants: RMC Research and Child Trends, Incorporated. These organizations provided additional research and policy analysis to support the immigrant rights groups' legal arguments.
The appeal was represented by Bradley Scott Girard from Democracy Forward Foundation in Washington, D.C., who argued on behalf of the appellants. The federal government was represented by Jessica Frances Woods Dillon from the Office of the United States Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland.
Additional counsel for the appellants included Niyati Shah and Shalaka Phadnis from Asian Americans Advancing Justice—AAJC in Washington, D.C., along with Jose Perez and Rex Chen from New York.
The case represents part of ongoing litigation challenging immigration policies under the current administration. Immigration advocacy organizations have increasingly turned to federal courts to challenge what they view as restrictive policies affecting immigrant communities and access to immigration services.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, making its rulings particularly significant for immigration policy in the Mid-Atlantic region. The court's decision affects not only the specific policies challenged in this case but may influence similar litigation in other federal circuits.
While the specific details of the challenged policies were not disclosed in the available court documents, the case appears to center on immigration services and enforcement policies implemented by DHS and USCIS under the current leadership.
The coalition of plaintiff organizations represents a broad spectrum of immigrant advocacy groups working on different aspects of immigration law and policy. These organizations typically provide direct services to immigrant communities, including legal assistance, English language education, and advocacy for policy changes.
Solutions in Hometown Connections, the lead plaintiff, focuses on connecting immigrant communities with local resources and services. The Central American Resource Center specifically serves Central American immigrant populations, while the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights advocates for comprehensive immigration reform.
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, operating in this case as HIAS Pennsylvania, has a long history of providing assistance to immigrants and refugees dating back to the late 19th century. The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition represents immigrant communities throughout New England.
The majority's affirmance of the district court suggests the lower court properly applied relevant immigration law and constitutional principles in ruling for the federal defendants. However, Judge Heytens' dissent indicates disagreement among the panel about the legal analysis or application of law to the facts.
The published nature of the opinion means it will serve as binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit and persuasive authority for other federal courts considering similar immigration law questions.
Immigrant advocacy organizations may seek further review of the decision, potentially requesting rehearing by the full Fourth Circuit or filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Such appeals typically face long odds, as higher courts grant review in only a small percentage of cases.
The case reflects the continuing legal battles over immigration policy implementation and the role of federal courts in reviewing agency actions affecting immigrant communities. As immigration remains a contentious political and legal issue, similar challenges are likely to continue in federal courts nationwide.