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
Supreme Court upheld a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully. According to the Court, the law does not run afoul of the First Amendment. In United States v. Hansen , 599 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. Critics of the immigrationdecision, including the Court’s three liberal justices, maintain that the decision chips away at the same-sex marriage rights guaranteed under Obergefell v.
Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. According to the eight-member majority, “federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”
The wife in the case had been fourteen when the case started in the first instance courts; she is now 22, and her marriage certainly no longer a child marriage. And as a matter of fact, the ConstitutionalCourtdecision itself is already almost two months old; it was rendered on February 1.
Egbert then checked the immigration paperwork for Boule’s guest and left after finding everything in order. The post Supreme Court Rejects Cause of Action Under Bivens Against Border Patrol Agent appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. The Turkish guest unlawfully entered Canada later that evening.
The majority of the Supreme Court is once again shifting their interpretation of the law in order to support right-wing political objectives! More law schools are kicking USNWR rankings to the curb. . 2022 was the year that ConstitutionalLaw dramatically shifted (to the right). [ ABA Journal ].
Supreme Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings enumerated under 8 U.S.C. 1255 , which would have made Patel and his wife lawful permanent residents. 1252(a)(2). Facts of the Case.
Supreme Court agreed to keep the federal government’s Title 42 policy in place while legal challenges continue. By a vote of 5-4, the justices stayed a lower courtdecision that would have lifted the policy on December 21, 2022. Alejandro Mayorkas et al.,
Yet his record is not unblemished: He distrusted immigrants from China and even voted to deny citizenship to their U.S.-born Having lived through Dred Scott , he was deeply conscious of how mistakes by the court could lead to terrible outcomes. Harlan’s dissent proved influential in changing the constitutionallaw of the nation.
Here is the column: Last year, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s “train whistle” docket with cases on abortion, guns, immigration, and other issues barreling down the track. This week, the court accepted two cases challenging racial preferences in college admissions. Well, that whistle just got a lot louder.
Three Republican senators – Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas – write that a precedent can be unworkable due to “a history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Courtdecisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards.”
The intermediate appellate court held that the defendant was not entitled to present the defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and obstruction even if those alternatives were not effective. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Rejection of NEPA Challenges to Immigration Policies. BP p.l.c. ,
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