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.
There is nothing unlawful in conveying individuals who are lawfully in the country pending their immigration hearings; the trips are voluntary, and most migrants appear eager to accept free passage to cities like New York or Chicago. ” However, it is the misrepresentation of the criminallaw that is most concerning.
The California provision states that kidnapping involves someone who “abducts or takes by force or fraud any person contrary to the law of the place where that act is committed, and brings, sends, or conveys that person within the limits of this state.” state once they are released by the federal government.
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. Hansen challenged the constitutionality of the ban on “encouraging or inducing” immigration.
Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigrationlaws. ” I also previously discussed how this interpretation would fail due to the text, intent, and history of the underlying constitutional provision. United States , 567 U.S.
In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigrationlaws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. Most are promptly released, and many are not even asked to appear for eight years at an immigration proceeding. For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Cuties is “the story of Amy, an eleven-year-old Senegalese immigrant caught between cultures: her devoutly Muslim family and the “Cuties”—a self-named dance group of Amy’s peers who have their hearts set on trying out for and performing at a big dance competition.”
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).
It will be a fun bit of trivia for constitutionallaw geeks, but it was also telling. Obama actually used his State of the Union address to declare his intent to circumvent the legislative branch after it refused to pass his legislation in areas such as the environment and immigration.
Former Justice official and Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith pointed out that Yates neither determined the immigration order to be unconstitutional nor cited any basis for refusing to defend it. It was a bizarre order since it is not the job of Justice Department attorneys to decide if a president is acting in a “wise or just.”
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