The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions today in two cases:

Judulang v. Holder, No. 10-694: Federal immigration law governs both the exclusion of aliens from admission to the United States and the deportation of aliens previously admitted. This case concerns the method for applying discretionary relief from deportation. In a unanimous decision, the Court today held that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ so-called “comparable grounds” policy (which involved comparing the statutory grounds for exclusion with the grounds for deportation in an individual alien’s case) is “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore invalid, under the Administrative Procedures Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Court’s decision is available here.

Hardy v. Cross, No. 11-74: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. §2254, requires a highly deferential standard for federal court evaluation of state-court rulings. In a per curiam decision, the Court today held that the Seventh Circuit had not been sufficiently deferential to a state appellate court determination that the state had conducted a sufficient search for a particular witness to render that witness “unavailable” under the Confrontation Clause. It accordingly reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decision granting habeas relief.

The Court’s decision is available here.

The Court granted review today in four cases, two of which were consolidated:

Radlax Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166: Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing a secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the “indubitable equivalent” of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182: Whether the federal immigration laws preempt state law provisions which direct state law enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and impose penalties under state law for non-compliance with federal immigration requirements.

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak, No. 11-246 and Salazar v. Patchak, No. 11-247 (consolidated): Whether 5 U.S.C. 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe, and whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.

Late last Friday, December 9, the Court also granted review in three cases, setting them for consolidated expedited briefing and for oral argument in early January:

Perry, et al. v. Perez, et al., Nos. 11-713, 11-714, and 11-715: What is the constitutional power of federal judges to draw up redistricting plans while a state legislature’s own maps are under challenge in court.