Remove Court Decisions Remove Litigating Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Justices will revisit whether certain noncitizens in lengthy detention are entitled to bond hearings

SCOTUSBlog

The Supreme Court previously held that the post-removal statute contains an implicit time limit. Davis , a 2001 decision, the court read that provision to prohibit detention beyond six months for noncitizens ordered removed when their removal is not “reasonably foreseeable.” In Zadvydas v. Rodriguez and Johnson v.

article thumbnail

Justices will clarify how death-row prisoners can contest a state’s method of execution

SCOTUSBlog

Share The Supreme Court doesn’t care all that much for method-of-execution challenges. It particularly disfavors Eighth Amendment litigation attacking familiar lethal injection protocols as “cruel and unusual” punishment. Georgia, by contrast, argues that Nance must bring the Eighth Amendment claim under the federal habeas statutes.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row

SCOTUSBlog

Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Reed should have filed his lawsuit within two years of the trial court’s decision denying his request for DNA testing. On Wednesday, the court reversed that decision. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Court 106
article thumbnail

A search for coherence in the interplay between AEDPA and Brecht

SCOTUSBlog

Under AEPDA, habeas relief is only available to a prisoner whose claims were adjudicated on the merits in state court if the prisoner can show that the last reasoned state court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Many of the justices seemed to agree. California.

article thumbnail

The 340B Showdown: HRSA Proceeds Towards Enforcement Despite Litigation

FDA Law Blog

HRSA based its opinion on the statute and agency precedents over the last 25 years. Judge Stark found that, although HRSA’s interpretation of the statute was permissible, the Advisory Opinion unjustifiably assumed that Congress imposed this interpretation as a statutory requirement. A decision is expected in the coming months.

article thumbnail

In “odd” clash of statutory text and habeas precedent, three conservative justices seem undecided

SCOTUSBlog

As Roberts put it, what should the court do in a situation where “the plain language” of a statute “seems to require one result,” while “the plainly logical meaning of a subsequent precedent” seems to require the opposite? But a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. We have to follow AEDPA.”

Statute 104
article thumbnail

New article published in African Journal of International and Comparative Law

Conflict of Laws

It is titled: CSA Okoli, A Yekini & P Oamen, “The Igiogbe Custom as a Mandatory Norm in Conflict of Laws: An Exploration of Nigerian Appellate Court Decisions.” Litigation on the custom has been described as a matter of life and death. This custom is a mandatory norm in conflict of laws.

Laws 64