Abhishek Kambli

“The issue is mainly whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what the information is,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-10-17

Kambli argued that the distinction over what information is being withheld misses the broader issue of federal preemption.

“That's different from the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-10-17

Kambli argued the Justice Department sought to prevent local laws from interfering with federal immigration enforcement, not to force city officials to carry it out.

“The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law in the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States's position,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-10-17

Kambli disputed Judge Reyes's standing reasoning, arguing the city's laws independently harm the federal government's authority.

“Really what the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering means is you can't force states to go from doing nothing to affirmatively assisting. What these statutes are doing is basically preventing states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-10-17

Kambli argued that Reyes misinterpreted the distinction between forcing local governments to assist federal enforcement and preventing them from obstructing it.

“And I think that's going to be a very tough argument to sustain, especially with the Supreme Court, that's more likely to agree with Rao than they are the [circuit court] majority, given the makeup of the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Supreme Court is very strict on standing.”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli said the standing argument would be tough to sustain at the Supreme Court, which he said is very strict on standing.

“It's the same house, but there was an alteration or an improvement done, so if you're using real property terms, then it's pretty clear how the statutory authority would make sense,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli concluded that using real property terms makes it clear how the statutory authority for alterations and improvements would apply.

“So, for instance, if you're planning to be visiting the East Ballroom — and even this is kind of a stretch — that's one thing, but if you're someone on the outside that just passes it by, that's a little tougher.”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli said a passerby who merely passes by the site would have a tougher claim to aesthetic standing than someone planning to visit.

“For instance, if I have an extension to my house, it doesn't become a new house,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli agreed with Rao's reasoning that terms like alteration and improvement should be understood in their ordinary real-property sense.

“It's the same house, but that's an improvement done on the house. Or if I tear down some walls and then just create an open living space in my like between my living room and my kitchen, that's also not a new house at that point.”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli used home renovation analogies to explain that alterations and improvements do not create a new property.

“Normally, aesthetic standing requires that you intend to use it,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli explained that aesthetic standing normally requires intent to use the area in question.

“While they do have ownership of some properties, the President's Park, where the White House East Ballroom is, is not one of them,”

Abhishek Kambli · said date not stated · reported 2026-08-08

Kambli told Fox News Digital that the National Trust could face a difficult hurdle on standing because it does not own President's Park.