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
While I agree with the Fifth Circuit that it is largely locked into the existing precedent in cases like Arizona v. 387, 399 (2012), finding “field preemption” of state immigration laws. It is a bitter recognition for the state that the open border conditions are the product of federal laws and policies.
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutionallaw to administrative authority and criminal justice. Area of Law: ConstitutionalLaw, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points. 2492 and H.B.
Stefanie Lindquist Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science, Arizona State University, answers critical questions including: does an indictment – or even a felony conviction – prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?
Hearing an account of Trump lawyer John Eastman tell the Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to “just do it” in scrapping the state’s slate of electors was cringeworthy. However, many seem to be making the same demand of Attorney General Garland about bringing criminal charges.
Democratic National Committee , an Arizona case in which the U.S. The Biden administration has made opposition to Georgia’s law into a rallying cry for its stalled legislative efforts to federalize state election laws. The lawsuit was less surprising than its timing: It was filed just days before the release of Brnovich v.
It is the “why not” approach to criminal and constitutionallaw. This week, Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes aptly described the claimed right to disqualify as a “radical” measure that would “encompass every elected office in our government — state, local, federal, and so forth.”
Chris Collins as well as Joe Arpaio, the highly controversial former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. That pattern continued on his last day with pardons for former Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi of Arizona who convicted of extortion, bribery, insurance fraud, money laundering, and racketeering. Duncan Hunter and former GOP Rep.
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