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
Independent, effective judicial oversight is the bedrock of the rule of law – it must be respected and strengthened. The UK’s Select Committee on the Constitution echoed the concern voiced by Türk. Governments cannot revoke their international human rights and asylum-related obligations by legislation.
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.
The issues before the Court involved immigration, RICO suits, and giving veterans the benefit of the doubt. The Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of certain discretionary immigration decisions. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases this week.
The US House of Representatives voted Tuesday not to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for allegedly failing to comply with US law and breaching public trust in his handling of immigration enforcement on the US-Mexico border.
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. We're now at 10 percent of law schools that say they will not participate in the ranking process. ABA Journal ].
Under longstanding constitutionallaw, most laws survive constitutional challenges so long as the government has a “rational basis” for enacting them. Louisville, Kentucky, is home to a large community of Nepali immigrants. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. In Tiwari v.
Alcaraz-Enriquez: The immigration cases, which were consolidated for one hour of oral argument, centers on the credibility of an immigrant’s testimony. The post Supreme Court Considers “Hot Pursuit” in Closely Watched Fourth Amendment Case appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. Ventura , 537 U.S.
The issues before the Court involved Native American law and immigration. United States : The case involves the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause and how it applies toa prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. The justices heard oral arguments in three cases.
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. The post Supreme Court Clarifies Bond Eligibility for Noncitizens Facing Re-Deportatio appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
First, let’s look at the law. 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.”
Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a case that is expected to define the scope of federal identity theft law. The appeals court found that the “plain meaning” of the word “use” is “to employ for the accomplishment of some purpose” or “ ‘to avail oneself of,” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1776 (10th ed. Facts of the Case.
Garland : The immigration case centers on jurisdictional issues. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.” . Santos-Zacaria v.
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.
Garland: The immigration case centers on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia. The post SCOTUS Kicks Off January 2024 Session With Five Cases appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. Campos-Chaves v.
The term is defined as those seeking to enter the United States through Canada or Mexico who “seek[] to enter … [ports of entry] who do not have proper travel documents, aliens whose entry is otherwise contrary to law, and aliens who are apprehended near the border seeking to unlawfully enter the United States between [ports of entry].”
Notably, California’s law expressly states that this money should not be treated as compensation for federal reparations. 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.
This weekend, MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross and MSNBC regular (and past writer for Above the Law and the Nation) repeated the false claim that the trips constitute kidnapping. Mystal responded to Cross’ claim that the trip constitute “kidnapping” with a diatribe against “Republican fascists.”
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.
It holds regular open meetings to “assess the needs of the community,” “evaluate and prioritize projects,” “obtain citizen input,” and “provide specific recommendations” to the City Council…After being appointed to the CPAB, Lathus was photographed at an immigrants’ rights rally standing near individuals whom Carr believed to be “Antifa.”
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.
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. The couple eventually sought to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero so that they could live together in the United States. Hodges , 576 U.S.
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.
United States , which involves the scope of a key federal bribery law. The justices have agreed to clarify the states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy, among other issues. The post Supreme Court Considers Scope of Federal Bribery Law appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. United States v.
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.
Yesterday, on March 29, 2023, the German Constitutional Court 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.
Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. In their opinion, Congress specifically prohibited courts from issuing injunctions related to certain immigrationlaws. 1226(c) ) or entry of a final order of removal ( 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(2) ). “If
The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law. 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. For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures.
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 complaint is stronger on rhetoric than supporting facts or law.
Yet his record is not unblemished: He distrusted immigrants from China and even voted to deny citizenship to their U.S.-born He is also a graduate of Columbia Law School. In the end, though, a large part of the story turned on the question of just what it was that enabled Harlan to see the law so differently from his peers.
Gonzalez : The latest immigration case before the justices involves when individuals subject to removal are entitled to an individualized bond hearing. Arteaga-Martinez : The Court’s second immigration of the week also involves when bond hearings are required. The Court will decide: “Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C.
We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort. He tends to resist the Court ordering radical changes as evident in his sole concurrence in Dobbs where he wanted to preserve Roe but uphold the Mississippi law. It allow the President to satisfy immigration advocates and his base by fighting to lift the limitation.
When Mr. Patel later sought to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident, a divided panel of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied him relief, holding that he is inadmissible because he “falsely represented” himself as a U.S. citizen for a benefit under state law.
Circuit Judges James Ho and Kurt Engelhardt), Chief Judge Priscilla Richman found that President Obama did indeed circumvent Congress and evaded the limits imposed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it enacted DACA in 2012. The court declared: “Under the first factor, DACA’s deficiencies are severe.
It is not clear how other factors may have affected this increase from increased immigration across the Southern border to changing economic conditions. That may be less than many pro-choice advocates suggested, but it still amounts to tens of thousands of babies.
At oral argument, we asked the University’s lawyer a series of questions about whether particular statements would violate the discriminatory-harassment policy: (1) ‘abortion is immoral’; (2) ‘unbridled open immigration is a danger to America on a variety of levels’; and (3) ‘the Palestinian movement is antisemitic.’
The law is only a few pages long and was intended to assist military personnel deployed abroad in combat zones. The idea of using that law in order to avoid getting congressional approval for such a massive expenditure was laughable. That is a constitutional debt that should not be forgiven.
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 justices heard arguments in six cases, which addressed issues ranging from methods of execution for death-row inmates to whether a high school football coach should be able to pray at midfield to the federal government’s controversial “remain in Mexico” immigration policy. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Nance v.
Apart from time spent criticizing the majority opinion, lengthy dissents can be used to lay the groundwork for future case law – as we saw among the conservative justices’ dissents in every abortion-related case between Roe and Dobbs. These observations are not a new phenomenon. In the coming term, the justices are slated to hear Moore v.
It is a criminal hate speech law that would violate core principles of the First Amendment. Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target in Ireland with the recently proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. The law is a free speech nightmare. I testified at the hearing).
support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.” Homeland redacted much of this information on a now defunct board under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations.”
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.
In the Garland case, the court ruled (again) unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch on the rule in immigration disputes regarding the credibility of noncitizens’ testimony. cannot be reconciled with the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Since the election, Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters. It consumes every part of a person. It is addictive, and it is contagious. New York state Sen.
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