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
.” The select committee explained that even when there is clear evidence that refugees sent to Rwanda are at risk of refoulement, decision-makers and courts must still regard it as a safe country when determining whether to send refugees there. The committee concluded that this may be a breach of the separation of powers.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases this week. The issues before the Court involved immigration, RICO suits, and giving veterans the benefit of the doubt. Environmental Protection Agency , which involves enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a frequent source of Supreme Court litigation.
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. The Court further found that the context and the statutory text both supported its interpretation.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases last week. California , which involves whether police pursuits for misdemeanors justify a warrantless entry, an issue which has divided the lower courts. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two other cases. ” The most-closely watched case is Lange v.
The majority of the Supreme Court is once again shifting their interpretation of the law in order to support right-wing political objectives! A Maricopa County Superior Court found Lake was responsible for the ~$33,000 in expert witness fees AZ Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs incurred. appeared first on Above the Law.
Supreme Court held that the detention of noncitizens ordered removed from the United States who reenter without authorization is governed by 8 U.S.C. Federal immigrationlaw establishes procedures for removing aliens living unlawfully in the United States as well as for determining whether such persons are detained during removal proceedings.
Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a case that is expected to define the scope of federal identity theft law. The specific issue before the Court in Dubin v. After a district court upheld the convictions, Dubin appealed. Issues Before the Supreme Court. Facts of the Case.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Under longstanding constitutionallaw, most laws survive constitutional challenges so long as the government has a “rational basis” for enacting them. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed.
Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. While the Court did not overrule Bivens , it did emphasize that recognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.”. The District Court declined to extend Bivens as re- quested, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Supreme Court recently returned to the bench for its February sitting. The issues before the Court involved Native American law and immigration. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Denezpi v. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. New York , No.
Supreme Court has failed to discover who leaked a draft of the Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. According to the Court’s investigatory report, the Court “has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.” Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Perez v.
Supreme Court returned from recess on January 4, 2024. The Court’s January session will feature some of the Term’s biggest cases, with several testing the limit of the federal government’s regulatory power. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Campos-Chaves v. In Siegel v.
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 court decision that would have lifted the policy on December 21, 2022. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the States’ motion. In Arizona et al. Alejandro Mayorkas et al.,
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada yanked the citizenship application after learning of the conviction under Putin’s draconian laws. Not only did she write the blogs while living in Canada, she notified Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada about the charges and supplied the underlying papers to the government.
There is an interesting free speech decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week. The opinion is clearly correct on a constitutional level, but there are some troubling elements given the underlying exercise of speech under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the case.
For example, New York and numerous other cities have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for undocumented immigrants yet, in recent months, have protested increasing transfers of such immigrants to their jurisdiction. The cost of California’s statewide reparations is estimated to be $569 billion. In City of Richmond v.
There is nothing unlawful about conveying individuals who are lawfully in the country pending their immigration hearings. Many migrants are released soon after capture, including some without a hearing date or court dates that are years in the future. The reason is that these claims are made for cable news, not courts of law.
Share On Friday the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. The question before the justices was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech.
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 immigration decision, including the Court’s three liberal justices, maintain that the decision chips away at the same-sex marriage rights guaranteed under Obergefell v.
This comes as Pakistan Interim Interior Minister Sarfraz Bugti issued a warning last week to “illegal immigrants” living in Pakistan to voluntarily leave the country by November 1 or risk potential arrest and deportation. ” UN human rights experts Tuesday called upon Pakistan to not carry out its planned deportations.
Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law. They have often found the courts closed to them.
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.”
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases. United States , which involves the scope of a key federal bribery law. Below is a brief summary of the other cases before the Court: Ciminelli v. The justices have agreed to clarify the states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy, among other issues.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4. Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigrationlaws. United States , 567 U.S. Instead, in The Federalist No.
Yesterday, on March 29, 2023, the German ConstitutionalCourt published its long-awaited (and also long) decision on the German “Act to Combat Child Marriage” ( Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Kinderehen ). 1 EGBGB ) – regardless of whether the marriage is valid under the normally applicable foreign law. That was a long time ago.
During his time as an associate justice from 1877 to 1911, he broke with his colleagues in some of the most consequential – and infamous – rulings that the court has ever issued. Yet his record is not unblemished: He distrusted immigrants from China and even voted to deny citizenship to their U.S.-born born children.
Indeed, I teach in torts where an immigrant to the United States filed a tort action for an involuntary inoculation upon entry in O’Brien v. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), including USCIS Form AR-11, “Alien’s Change of Address Card.” ” The lawyers are citing a brochure to support the claim of fraud.
This evening, the Supreme Court issued an order in the Title 42 case that stayed the nationwide vacatur issue by Emmet G. The Court ordered that. It is not clear what the Court meant by “does not prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that policy.” Circuit upheld the order.
The central issue before the Court in both cases is whether the vaccine mandates should be allowed to move forward while the legal challenges work their way through the lower courts. This past week, the Court heard oral arguments in four cases. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Gallardo v.
Now the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld a lower court in ruling against DACA. The court declared: “Under the first factor, DACA’s deficiencies are severe. The district court’s excellent opinion correctly identified fundamental substantive defects in the program. United States.
Supreme Court ended its December sitting with oral arguments in Carson v. Constitution. 2246 (2020), the Supreme Court held that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school’s religious status. The issue is now before the Court in Carson v.
It is not clear how other factors may have affected this increase from increased immigration across the Southern border to changing economic conditions. In a related story,Carson City District Court Judge James Russell has ruled against putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot for 2024 to make abortion a constitutional right.
There is a major victory for free speech out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week. The appeals court overturned Presnell’s rejection of a preliminary injunction against UCF’s harassment policy and ordered the district court to consider the constitutionality of UCF’s bias response team.
The move is relatively rare since the Younger abstention doctrine ordinarily shields state prosecutions from such interventions of federal courts. However, the court highlighted deep flaws in the prosecutorial case. The court expresses grave doubts that the charges were brought with “any hope of obtaining a valid conviction.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bizarrely condemned the Supreme Court for usurping congressional authority by supporting congressional authority in the student loan case. She renewed her calls for retaliation through subpoenas, court packing, and even impeachment. She previously said that she did not understand why we needed a Supreme Court.
Supreme Court has concluded its oral arguments for the October 2021 Term. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Nance v. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Nance v. On remand, the lower courts found that Kennedy lost his job solely because of his religious expression. In Bucklew v.
Share When the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. The Dobbs majority opinion was the third-longest Supreme Court opinion since the beginning of the 1946-47 term, according to our analysis. Both trends could further diminish perceptions of a collegial and productive court.
The “ Great Replacement Theory ” was the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last year, in which Democrats alleged that Republicans — and Fox News in particular — are “radicalizing” domestic terrorists with rhetoric opposing illegal immigration. ( I testified at the hearing).
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. In Patel v. 1252(a)(2).
support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.” Recently, a court found that the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts constituted “ the most massive attack against free speech in United States history. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. Those words by Chief U.S.
Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. Today the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court. Recently, Breyer warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court.
Below is my column in USA Today on states and cities joining the “resistance” to the Trump Administration and its immigration policies. Immigration proved to be one of the top issues for voters in this year’s election, which brought control of both houses of Congress and the White House to the GOP.
The move violated a court order based, in no small part, on the fact that the Enemy Aliens Act actually requires a war with or invasion by a “foreign nation or government.” There are plenty of immigrant gang members in American prisons now. ” Which, minor detail for the textualists out there, is not happening here.
Below is my column in The Hill on the recent bills proposed in Florida and California on immigration and guns. Newsom’s gun ‘heartbeat’ law. Newsom tapped into the liberal rage after the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the Texas law that allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after about six weeks.
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