The information below explains general legal concepts for educational purposes. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- National overview: The ABA Washington Letter reported that the ABA House of Delegates convened Aug. 3 and 4 in Chicago in 2009 and approved new policies during that meeting.
- National overview: The ABA Washington Letter reported that the delegates adopted more than 30 resolutions during their two-day meeting.
- Federal level: The ABA Washington Letter reported that ABA filed a complaint on Aug. 27, 2009 asking a U.S. District Court to bar the FTC from applying its “Red Flags Rule” to practicing lawyers.
- Federal level: The ABA Washington Letter reported that, as of the newsletter, the “Red Flags Rule” was scheduled to take effect on Nov. 1, 2009.
- Federal level: The ABA Washington Letter described the “Red Flags Rule” as requiring financial institutions and creditors to implement programs to detect, identify, and respond to activities signaling possible identity theft.
- Federal level: The ABA Washington Letter reported ABA support for revising 42 CFR Part 34 to remove HIV infection from the list of “communicable disease[s] of public health significance.”.
- Federal level: Federal immigration law provides that aliens determined to have a “communicable disease of public health significance” are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(1)(A)(i).
- Federal level: Federal regulations under 42 CFR Part 34 govern medical examinations for aliens applying for a visa, arriving aliens, DHS-required medical exams, and aliens applying for adjustment of status.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- What the ABA reported about its 2009 House of Delegates meeting in Chicago
- Delegates adopted more than 30 resolutions during the two day session
- The 2009 “Red Flags Rule” dispute as described in the archive report
- Why HIV and 42 CFR Part 34 appeared in the same annual meeting coverage
- How today’s federal immigration medical inadmissibility framework is structured
- Common confusion when reading an archive policy summary alongside current law
- Sources
This archive recovery draws on the ABA’s September 2009 Washington Letter summary of the ABA House of Delegates meeting held in Chicago on Aug. 3–4, 2009, and then connects that historical discussion to the current federal immigration medical inadmissibility structure. The site also preserves ABA annual meeting coverage in ABA annual meeting archive speech examples.
What the ABA reported about its 2009 House of Delegates meeting in Chicago
The ABA’s Washington Letter (Sept. 2009) reported that the ABA House of Delegates convened Aug. 3 and 4 in Chicago in 2009 and approved new policies during that meeting. It also discussed the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which the ABA House of Delegates adopted in 1983 and that the ABA describes as model ethics rules.
Delegates adopted more than 30 resolutions during the two day session
In the same Washington Letter summary, the delegates’ actions are described in resolution terms: the ABA reported that delegates adopted more than 30 resolutions during their two-day meeting. For readers using this as a historical record, the annual meeting context helps explain why the archive includes policy disputes and regulatory topics alongside immigration-related medical rules.
The 2009 “Red Flags Rule” dispute as described in the archive report
The ABA Washington Letter also captured a federal regulatory controversy that it described as involving the FTC’s “Red Flags Rule.” As reported in 2009, ABA filed a complaint on Aug. 27, 2009 asking a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to bar the FTC from applying its “Red Flags Rule,” described as a program requirement for financial institutions and creditors to detect, identify, and respond to activities signaling possible identity theft, to practicing lawyers. The Washington Letter further reported that the rule was scheduled to take effect on Nov. 1, 2009, and it framed ABA’s filing as challenging the rule’s application to lawyers.
Why HIV and 42 CFR Part 34 appeared in the same annual meeting coverage
The Washington Letter summary tied the annual meeting to immigration-related regulatory topics as well. It reported that ABA expressed support for revising 42 CFR Part 34 to remove HIV infection from the list of “communicable disease[s] of public health significance.” As archive recovery, this pairing shows how the ABA’s annual meeting coverage sometimes placed professional and regulatory issues next to federal immigration medical definitions that depended on the regulatory framework in 42 CFR Part 34.
How today’s federal immigration medical inadmissibility framework is structured
Federal immigration law uses the label “communicable disease of public health significance” as a statutory trigger for inadmissibility. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, aliens determined to have a “communicable disease of public health significance” are inadmissible. Federal regulations then set out the medical-examination framework under 42 CFR Part 34, including that the provisions apply to medical examinations for visa applicants, arriving aliens, aliens required by DHS to have an exam, and aliens applying for adjustment of status. The definition is further implemented in the regulations: 42 CFR § 34.2 defines the term by reference to communicable diseases “as listed in a Presidential Executive Order” under Section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act.
Archive snapshot vs. current controlling legal text
| Topic | What the ABA Washington Letter reported for 2009 | Current control in federal law/regulations |
|---|---|---|
| “Red Flags Rule” (identity theft compliance dispute) | ABA reported filing suit to prevent application to practicing lawyers and reported a scheduled take-effect date of Nov. 1, 2009. | Current enforceability depends on today’s FTC rule text and any litigation outcomes; this archive recovery focuses on what the ABA reported in 2009 rather than current FTC status. |
| “Communicable disease of public health significance” | ABA reported support for revising 42 CFR Part 34 to remove HIV infection from the list. | 8 U.S.C. § 1182 provides inadmissibility under that label, and 42 CFR Part 34/§ 34.2 implements it through medical-exam rules and a definition tied to a Presidential Executive Order list. |
Common confusion when reading an archive policy summary alongside current law
Several archive-to-current misunderstandings often happen. First, an archive report’s “scheduled to take effect” language describes the regulatory timeline at that point in time; the controlling question for today remains the current federal text and any later changes. Second, the HIV-related archive discussion must be read alongside the regulatory definition method in 42 CFR § 34.2, which cross-references a Presidential Executive Order list; this archive recovery does not verify whether HIV appears on that executive-order list today, because that would require checking the current executive-order list referenced by the regulation.
