Immigration Louisiana Statute 
JURIST
JUNE 24, 2023
Texas that Texas and Louisiana do not have constitutional standing to sue the federal government over a 2021 Homeland Security Memorandum that focuses immigration enforcement actions on non-citizens who are suspected of terrorism, committed serious crimes or are caught at the border entering illegally.
Constitutional Law Reporter
DECEMBER 19, 2022
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud — which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud — states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.”. United States v. 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 12, 2023
Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guidelines contravene two federal statutes that they contend require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison ( 8 U.S.C.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 23, 2023
In a major victory for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Texas and Louisiana do not have a legal right, known as standing, to challenge a Biden administration policy that prioritizes certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for arrest and deportation. Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 19, 2024
Louisiana that the Sixth Amendment (as incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment) guarantees criminal defendants the right to a unanimous jury, it meant a unanimous 12-person jury — not a six-person jury, which is all that Florida affords some felony defendants. Next up is Lackey v. Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen children.
SCOTUSBlog
NOVEMBER 30, 2021
To the contrary, in the year it was ratified (1868), thirty of thirty-seven states explicitly criminalized abortion by statute.” According to the group, the court wrongly concluded in Roe that the 19th-century statutes had been enacted to protect women from dangerous operations, rather than to protect fetuses.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
FEBRUARY 10, 2020
The defendants filed their reply brief on January 22, 2020, reiterating their arguments that the Tenth Circuit should review the entire remand order, not just the district court’s determination that removal was not proper under the federal-officer removal statute, and that there were multiple valid grounds for removal. City of Oakland v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
211 
Let's personalize your content