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
Not content with arresting judges, ICE is now arresting mayors who have the temerity to object to rounding up immigrants and warehousing them in ICE detention facilities. billion contract to run a 1000-bed immigration facility in his town as a hub “serving” the New York metro area. But as Rep.
The two judges in the panel majority seem to disagree, stating that "the [Board of Immigration Appeals] penalized Qatanani for quintessential First Amendment activity," but declines to discuss the matter in detail because it concludes Qatanani should prevail on statutory and procedural grounds.) Attorney General. Williams (1904). California.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, representing President Trump and the Department of Defense (DOD), argued Breyer had no authority to review the president’s determination of any of the elements of the statute, calling such a decision an “extraordinary intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”
Justice Barretts influence, once assumed to be rigidly conservative, is quietly increasingparticularly in cases touching on procedural fairness, personal liberty, or the limits of government power. The Court ruled that the governments use of fragmented notices in removal proceedings violated statutory requirements.
The relists this week look especially likely to yield grants, with the government or respected “friends of the court” urging review. The federal government – normally in the business of defending federal statutes – filed a brief agreeing with the challengers and urging the justices to take up the case. The real eyebrow-raiser?
78, and still today, this statute "is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies," S. America fought the Revolutionary War to be free of arbitrary government power of the sort often wielded by the British monarchy. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government's wish. Bray & E.
But I have seen little written on the majority opinion’s discussion of what the government must show to obtain a stay of an injunction. In all of the cases in which the government is seeking emergency stays, the lower courts have found that these factors favor the plaintiffs. That is enough to justify interim relief.”
Rule 23 is the provision of federal law governing such class action litigation. Perhaps the best way to understand what's going on with it is by first revisiting the concurring opinion written in the nationwide injunctions case last month by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "In
Menocal , the justices agreed to decide whether a government contractors claim that it is entitled to sovereign immunity for work that it did on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement falls within what is known as the collateral order doctrine. In The GEO Group v.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported Friday that the governments of the United States and El Salvador have subjected more than 200 Venezuelan nationals to forced disappearances and arbitrary detention. Critics have questioned the legitimacy of using such archaic and seldom-invoked statutes for mass deportations. Goebertus said.
United States , involving the scope of a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences for extraordinary and compelling reasons. Government contractors defenses to torts The GEO Group, Inc. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists.
A US federal judge on Friday refused to order the immediate release of pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, despite ruling that the initial arrest and continued detention lacked a lawful basis. ” The government has not yet commented on the decision. Judge Michael E.
Trump's sweeping new travel ban can only be justified by a virtually unlimited grant of authority to impose immigration restrictions. Unlimited delegation of power over immigration is unconstitutional for much the same reasons as unlimited tariff authority. The statute Trump cites to justify the new travel ban, 8 U.S.C.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)the US federal service responsible for collecting taxes for the governmentacting commissioner Melanie Krause resigned on Tuesday over a new Trump administration agreement that allows the IRS to send immigrants tax information to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 6103(i)(2).
Bondi , the justices will decide how much deference courts of appeals should give to a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals that an individual seeking asylum has not been persecuted. The court had asked the Trump administration for its views in the case, and the federal government had recommended that review be granted.
In addition, subjects like immigration and securities law violations, often a focus of the docket, can have direct relevance to issues of criminal law. United States (March 21): Statements that are misleading but not false are not within the criminal false bank statements statute. and Martin v. Thompson v.
government that TikTok—the megapopular video sharing social media app owned by Chinese company ByteDance—must either be sold to another parent company or cease operating in the United States. In the intervening period, the government has simply declined to enforce the law, allowing TikTok to continue operating under Chinese ownership.
Together, these cases deal with balancing government authority, economic activity, and individual rights. Immigration Barretts opinions in the area of agency deference specific to immigration cases have evolved, reflecting a preference for judicial restraint and a pragmatic approach to standing and executive authority.
to prevent people from accessing the court,” including attempts by federal immigration agents during the next administration beginning tomorrow. Additionally, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting officers from making civil immigration arrests at the federal courthouse. ” (See here.) .”
President Trump invoked the IEEPA in 2025 to impose additional tariffs on imports from Canada , Mexico , and China , citing national security concerns related to illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The statute requires that actions in effect for more than one year be phased down at regular intervals. commerce.
The move came a day before a scheduled lower court hearing that could have even further developed a record of government abuses — a hearing the Supreme Court helpfully mooted for the administration. The Government expressly agrees that TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review. .”
Two national immigrants’ rights organizations filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Friday seeking to block US President Donald J. The executive order, signed by Trump on January 20, 2025, purports to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or individuals with only temporary legal status.
The rally was held on May 1, established as Law Day by President Dwight Eisenhower May 1, 1958, as a day of national dedication to the principles of government under law. 9 Milwaukee Judge Charged with Obstructing Immigration Agents is Relieved of Duty. See here for more on that history.) Read more here (gift link). Read more here. #9
The government defended the policy by citing concerns about military readiness, unit cohesion, and costs, but the court found these justifications unsupported by credible evidence. Obama) What its about: This case arose from the federal governments termination of thousands of probationary employees across multiple agencies in February 2025.
Proxy advisory firms give recommendations to institutional investors on how they should vote on shareholder governance proposals. Only people who have undergone certain training are allowed to make civil immigration arrests, and the marshals haven't done that. Circuit : But he cannot do so anonymously. Circuit : Which is wrong.
John Sauer wrote, wrested control of the nations immigration policy away from the Executive Branch and imposed the courts own perception as to whether the governments actions might contradict U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the governments request to stay Chens order while its appeal continued.
The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration. However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.
Although several justices in recent years have expressed skepticism about so-called nationwide injunctions, which bar the government from enforcing a law or policy anywhere in the country, during more than two hours of oral arguments, it was not clear whether a majority of the justices were ready to bar such injunctions altogether.
The two judges in the panel majority seem to disagree, stating that "the [Board of Immigration Appeals] penalized Qatanani for quintessential First Amendment activity," but declines to discuss the matter in detail because it concludes Qatanani should prevail on statutory and procedural grounds.) Attorney General. Williams (1904). California.
21 , represents the first time in modern history a president has invoked the AEA without a formal declaration of war or a recognized foreign government as the aggressor. The statute grants the president broad authority to round up and deport citizens of enemy countries in times of war or amid an invasion or hostile incursion.
.” The lawsuit explained how the funding freeze allegedly violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the scope of agency discretion in light of the Constitution and congressional authorization. Plaintiffs relied on the APA to reason that the court should strike down agency actions contrary to federal statutes.
And he reiterated that the plain language of the TRO entered in this case prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements” when he granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to enforce after the government was caught blatantly defying the first order. That was b t if you can even believe it!
The Justice Department on Monday filed notice that it was appealing a ruling that struck down an executive order against Perkins Coie , one of the first law firms to be targeted by a sweeping measure that directed agencies to remove access to federal buildings and strip its clients of government contracts. Read more here (gift link).
Rutherford County, Tennessee 24-755 Issue : Whether a common law privilege to access property categorically absolves the governments duty of just compensation for property it physically destroys. Slaybaugh v. Wye Oak Technology, Inc. Urias-Orellana v. 1101(a)(42). 1101(a)(42). Jacobson v. Republican National Committee v. Missouri v.
Erez Reuveni had worked at the Justice Department for nearly 15 years, most recently as the acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation. I encourage attorneys practicing in California to familiarize themselves with laws governing client solicitation after a natural disaster or catastrophe. Read more here.
The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." In other words, Free Speech Coalition v.
Plaintiffs challenged the Proclamation on statutory grounds, alleging that it violates a number of statutesgoverning the granting or withholding of asylum, and, "most fundamentally," that the President is not authorized to unilaterally reform the Congressionally-structured asylum system. [1]
Plaintiffs challenged the Proclamation on statutory grounds, alleging that it violates a number of statutesgoverning the granting or withholding of asylum, and, "most fundamentally," that the President is not authorized to unilaterally reform the Congressionally-structured asylum system. [1]
Co-blogger Josh Blackman here acknowledges that he hasn't been following the legal developments in the TikTok case too closely, and that his reaction to the Attorney General's claim that the President had "nullified the legal effects of a statute passed by large bipartisan majorities in 2024" is "schaudenfreude." But maybe you do.
The question is how the government should respond to those problems. That risk premium gives drug traffickers a powerful incentive to find ways around any barriers the government manages to erect. That tradeoff is morally dubious, even if you accept paternalism as a justification for government intervention. Charles Fain Lehman.
Many courts list "whether the suit … challeng[es] the actions of the government or that of private parties" as one factor in deciding whether to allow pseudonymity. Some courts conclude that pseudonymity is less available in suits against the government than in suits against private parties, see, e.g., Doe v. Megless (3d Cir.
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) , a federal law that criminalizes the encouragement of illegal immigration, does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. ” The US government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in 2022. The US Supreme Court ruled Friday in US v. Hansen that 8 U.S.C.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, adopting a rigid interpretation of a federal statute that requires the government to serve a “notice to appear” in order to trigger the “stop-time” rule. That rule can foreclose access to immigration relief by preventing noncitizens from accruing the time required for eligibility.
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Monday upheld a New Jersey state law enforcement directive limiting local police interactions with, and/or barring its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. A second county filed suit the following month launching similar challenges to the Directive.
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