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
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.
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.
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.
Garland (“the immigration case”) asking whether a federal court can review a decision by an agency within the Department of Justice ruling that a person is ineligible for permanent residency and in Hughes v. Th immigration case involves Pankajkumar Patel, a citizen of India who has been living in the US for almost 30 years.
” The statute for apprehension and detention of non-citizen immigrants, 8 U.S. .” ” The statute for apprehension and detention of non-citizen immigrants, 8 U.S. Code § 1226 , did not previously specify the burden of proof to be met at immigration bond hearings.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in two challenges to lengthy immigration detention of noncitizens who claim they are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Arteaga-Martinez , is whether the post-removal detention statute, 8 U.S.C. Only seven justices took the bench for the two cases.
Five Questions About the Khalil Case: The government’s arrest and detention of a pro-Palestinian Columbia student (and green card holder) raises difficult questions about both technical immigrationstatutes and the First Amendment.” “131.
Congress created a process known as “adjustment of status” so that immigrants physically present in the United States could change their status to that of a lawful permanent resident (i.e., In 2012, Patel was placed in deportation proceedings before an immigration judge. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case on Monday.
Garland , an immigration case that raises a question about federal court review for noncitizens who were denied certain types of discretionary relief. First, the applicant must meet precise eligibility requirements under the statute. Second, immigration officials must exercise their discretion to grant the relief.
The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday on an immigrant status case regarding noncitizens seeking to change their immigration status from temporary protected status (TPS) to lawful permanent residency.
Cordero-Garcia , involving whether a federal law that allows the government to deport noncitizens convicted of “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” applies even to cases that are not connected to open investigations or judicial proceedings. An immigration judge agreed and ordered Pugin removed.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Tuesday ruled that a Honduran man’s conviction in California for possession of a forged social security number card (SSN) with a counterfeit government seal is grounds for deportation as a crime of moral turpitude.
The report identified 11 themes common among many of the cases that signified a systemic pattern of racism, such as the use of pretextual stops that lead to excessive force, excessive use of lethal restraints, targeting of Black immigrants and complicity of legal actors in racist police killings through qualified immunity.
Pursuant to the post-removal order statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231 , the government detained him. Fearing persecution or torture in Mexico, Arteaga-Martinez then sought “withholding of removal,” which bars the government from removing a noncitizen to such a country. without authorization and was ordered removed.
A new generative AI product for immigration lawyers announced today is designed to help them conduct research, draft and summarize complex legal documents, and engage with potential clients through a chat interface. “Immigration law is an incredibly complex, high-stakes area of law. Called Visalaw.ai Called Visalaw.ai
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in two related immigration cases , Johnson v. In both cases, noncitizens who are under deportation orders are challenging their prolonged detention – sometimes many months or even years — without the safeguard of a bond hearing before an immigration judge. In Zadvydas v.
The charge of criminal re-entry requires the prior existence of a removal order entered by a federal immigration agency. That statute, 8 U.S.C. Chief Justice John Roberts solicited the government’s views on Palomar-Santiago’s characterization of the removal order as void ab initio (i.e.,
Share On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with the government in a pair of cases brought by noncitizens who are under deportation orders and were in lengthy detention, rejecting lower courts’ rights-protective interpretation of the relevant detention statute and blocking an important avenue for injunctive relief in immigration detention cases.
1324(a)(1)(iv) , the 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 freedom of speech. Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared the most skeptical of the government’s construction. The argument unfolded in many ways as expected.
The court must decide which of two federal statutesgoverns these migrants’ eligibility to be released on bond. 1226 governs; it applies “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed,” and generally neither requires a period of detention nor mandates supervision if a person is released. 1231 controls.
Helaman Hansen ran an immigration-advising service. Hansen charged undocumented immigrants to advise them on what he claimed was a pathway to U.S. The government again seeks review of the 9th Circuit’s holding. Our first new relist this week, United States v. Hansen , squarely raises that First Amendment challenge.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases, including a First Amendment challenge to a federal law that prohibits encouraging illegal immigration. After the 9th Circuit declined to rehear the case, the federal government came to the Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to weigh in. In United States v.
Mayorkas that adjustment of status is reserved for those who were inspected at the border and admitted to the United States by an immigration officer, thus disqualifying the majority of those granted Temporary Protected Status. The court sided with the government and rejected the interpretation advanced by Sanchez and Gonzalez.
The law creates a misdemeanor offense for violation of the statute and a felony crime for multiple offenses. It also empowers state magistrate judges to hear immigration cases and issue removal orders, in addition to giving law enforcement the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the law. Last month, Abbott signed SB 4.
Helaman Hansen ran an immigration-advising service called Americans Helping America Chamber of Commerce. A federal court in California convicted Hansen of multiple counts of fraud, as well as convincing two of his customers to overstay their visas and participate in his adoption program in violation of the encourage-or-induce statute.
statutes and regulations. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows migrants pursuing so-called “withholding only” relief to be released on bond at some point; the court must decide which release statute applies. 1231 governs. Some courts hold that claims of U.S. citizenship may also be raised).
8 for a packed session of oral arguments – starting with immigration policy and the post-9/11 “No Fly List” and ending on Jan. Singh , in which the court will consider what kind of notice the government must provide before a noncitizen can be deported for not appearing in court. Share The justices returned to the bench on Jan.
Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon argued for the government that the offense did not require a nexus to a pending investigation or proceeding. The post No clear path on how court will rule after oral arguments in two immigration cases Monday appeared first on SCOTUSblog. It is unclear how they will ultimately chart their course.
In argument and briefing, the government contended that the 9th Circuit rule — which took asylum seekers’ testimony as credible when faced with agency silence on credibility — violated standards of federal court review. In asylum cases, the immigration judge is responsible for making credibility determinations as trier-of-fact.
Garland , 20-979 , which seems a likely grant, because the government, as respondent, agrees that there is a circuit split and review is warranted on one of the questions presented. The 11th Circuit also held that noncitizens are inadmissible even if their misrepresentation of citizenship is immaterial to the government benefit sought.
Reading from the bench on Thursday, Sotomayor called the majority’s decision “a devastating blow to the manner in which our government functions.” For Sotomayor, cases where the government itself is the claimant were the easy cases, the very definition of public rights.
Share The nation’s immigration courts are breaking under the cumulative weight of a byzantine statutory scheme, chronic understaffing, and insurmountable case backlogs. The case arose from the government’s attempt to deport Leon Santos-Zacaria, a 34-year-old transgender woman and citizen of Guatemala.
The legal position is that the statute requires “the most clear and explicit words” to constitute an ouster clause and override the presumption of legislative intention that executive decisions are justiciable by way of judicial review. The legal dispute arose from the well-established Anisminic principle in English common law.
Fazaga , is the second case this term in which the justices will consider the state-secrets privilege, a doctrine that allows the government to withhold information in litigation when disclosing it would compromise national security. The case, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. The first case, United States v.
Mayors, government officials and leaders across the state of New York gathered in Albany on Wednesday for what is colloquially known as “Tin Cup Day,” making their cases for budget increases and specific allocations as the legislature prepares to negotiate the Governor’s proposed budget. The final budget is due in April.
Share In an opinion released on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens subject to deportation do not have to ask the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its allegedly erroneous decisions before seeking judicial review in the federal courts of appeals. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision.
Gun possession and immigration status. Florida , Patrick Huff claims that a circuit split has emerged as to whether a court must apply Waller when a state has a statutegoverning courtroom closures. 922(g)(5)(A) , the government must prove that the defendant knew his legal status — other subdivisions of18 U.S.C. §
She asked the government to “withhold” her deportation for humanitarian reasons. Both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected her request. The court has set a high bar for finding that a statute restricts the types of cases the federal judiciary can hear. Appealing to the U.S.
De George , the Supreme Court held that the term “crime involving moral turpitude” in federal immigration law is not unconstitutionally vague. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. In its 1951 decision in Jordan v. He became a lawful permanent resident after marrying a U.S. citizen the following year. 1227(a)(2)(A).
In 2011, after 60 years in which the statute did not lead to a reported decision, Kentucky sued the operators of PokerStars, an online poker platform, to recover the combined poker losses of Kentucky citizens. A Kentucky state court awarded Kentucky $870 million, calculated as three times $290 million in losses. United States.
The Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions in recent years limiting the reach of the federal wire-fraud statute, which outlaws the use of “the wires” – including internet and phone lines – to commit fraud. The court reasoned that the focus of the wire-fraud statute is the misuse of U.S.
The statute of limitations for the remaining misdemeanor charges against the two will expire in February. The court dropped some misdemeanor charges against volunteers Mardini and Binder because of procedural errors, including a failure to issue a translated indictment to the defendants.
They described the question presented by the case as “critically important,” explaining that “RICO is a frequently litigated federal statute that imposes treble damages and attorneys’ fees.” “If The companies came to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to take up the case and weigh in. In Bufkin v.
In three of the past four terms, the Supreme Court has rejected broad readings of white-collar criminal laws urged by the federal government. Issue : Whether a federal court deciding a state-law issue in a bankruptcy case must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules or federal choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs.
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