Constitutional Law Reporter

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

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.

Immigration 52

Immigration Court Statute Construction 52

JonathanTurley

MARCH 28, 2024

Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. ” I also previously discussed how this interpretation would fail due to the text, intent, and history of the underlying constitutional provision. The legal difference is obvious.

Immigration 46

Immigration Government Laws Court 46

JonathanTurley

SEPTEMBER 18, 2022

Despite the utter lack of legal basis for these allegations, major media has continued to air such claims. 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. It is legally absurd. Gavin Newsom.

Criminal Law 43

Criminal Law Immigration Education Legal 43

JonathanTurley

JUNE 9, 2023

.” The problem, however, is that this is just like the transport of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in September 2022, which a number of Democratic leaders and legal experts insisted was also a clear case of kidnapping and human trafficking. Newsom previously asked the U.S. To great acclaim, Rachael Rollins, then the U.S.

Laws 37

Laws Misdemeanor Attorney Felony 37

JonathanTurley

JANUARY 25, 2021

Yet the true president at that moment was in Florida: Donald Trump legally would remain in office for ten more minutes, under the 20th Amendment. It will be a fun bit of trivia for constitutional law geeks, but it was also telling. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Immigration 48

Immigration Constitutional Law Tort Sports 48

JonathanTurley

DECEMBER 8, 2020

Trump was about to sign his travel ban and had sent the draft to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, an office ordinarily given considerable deference on the legality of policies and orders. The career staff at the OLC had found that the order was legal and within Trump’s authority.

Attorney 42

Attorney Drafting Legal Legal 42