This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images) Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, once celebrated as a stalwart conservative and a crowning achievement of the Trump presidency, now finds herself under fire from the very base that championed her confirmation. Her recent vote in Department of State v. Lets unpack the data.
The Danish Court of Impeachment, or Rigsretten, Monday sentenced former Danish immigration minister Inger Støjberg to 60 days in prison. As immigration minister, Støjberg was responsible for administrating and enforcing Danish immigrationlaw during the 2015 European migration crisis.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to set immigration policy. Texas and Louisiana are challenging a federal policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation, arguing that it violates federal law.
Share The Supreme Court will again weigh the executive branch’s authority to set immigration policy as some red states claim that the Biden administration’s enforcement decisions are too lax. The justices will hear the case in late November without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in. In a filing by U.S.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Last term, the court dismissed as improvidently granted, or “DIG”ed , a case brought by Republican-controlled states challenging the government’s repeal of a Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule.
In the year since the Supreme Court embraced the “major questions doctrine” (MQD), industry and Republican state attorneys general have argued that federal regulations ranging from stricter vehicle emissions standards to climate change disclosures must be struck down under its banner. Env’t Prot.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out an effort by Arizona and 12 other states with Republican attorneys general to defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration refused to do so. The case, Arizona v. The states went to the U.S.
The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear oral arguments in Biden v. The Biden administration seeks a declaration that it may cease enforcement of the “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy first implemented by former President Trump. The case before the Supreme Court hinges on two main issues.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in a challenge to a Biden administration policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation. The policy at the center of the case is set forth in a September 2021 memorandum by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
immigrationcourt. In June 2021, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security issued a decision terminating the policy. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the secretary attempted to address the earlier deficient explanation by issuing a new decision terminating the policy. The law, S.B.
Share The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court for an immediate reprieve from having to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico immigrationcourt. The court agreed in October 2020 to review a ruling by the U.S.
Share A review of Ian Millhiser, The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America (Columbia Global Reports 2021). Columbia Global Reports 2021). Millhiser begins the book by highlighting the Supreme Court’s present-day power and sketching the historical evolution that brought it to this point.
The Supreme Court on Thursday released the calendar for its February argument session, which begins on Feb. Innovation Law Lab , a challenge to the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants seeking asylum to Mexico while they wait for an asylum hearing in U.S.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content