article thumbnail

Immigration, takings, administrative law and the kitchen sink

SCOTUSBlog

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.

article thumbnail

Biden administration seeks quick relief from restoring “remain in Mexico” policy

SCOTUSBlog

The case now before the court was filed in April by Texas and Missouri, which argued (among other things) that the administration’s decision to end the policy violated federal immigration law and the federal law governing the procedures that federal administrative agencies must follow. On Thursday, the U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

When do legal observers at protests get First Amendment protection?

SCOTUSBlog

If a government official punishes someone because of their pure speech, that person may have a strong case to sue for retaliation in violation of their constitutional rights. Louis, Missouri. United States 23-310 Issue : Whether the administrative law principles articulated in Kisor v. Ratzloff v.

Legal 89
article thumbnail

Justices delve into a trio of thorny issues in states’ challenge to federal immigration policy

SCOTUSBlog

After nearly two-and-a-half hours of debate, it was difficult to predict precisely how the justices will resolve the case, which could have significant implications not only for the the executive branch’s ability to set immigration policy but also for states’ ability to sue the federal government when they disagree with its actions.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot

SCOTUSBlog

Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the federal government. Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, Section 3 was intended to disqualify individuals who had served in the federal (or state) government before the Civil War and had sworn to uphold the Constitution but then supported the Confederacy.

Court 145
article thumbnail

The last grants of October Term 2022?

SCOTUSBlog

Rahimi , which involves a petition for review by the federal government, strikes me as a particularly likely candidate for review. The federal government now asks the justices to weigh in on the case, arguing that the domestic violence ban is constitutional. That last case, United States v. That’s all for this term. City of St.

article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The third-party complaint asserted that while the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, Statoil, “as well as potentially the many other sovereign governments that use and promote fossil fuels,” must be joined as third-party defendants. Chevron filed similar notices of withdrawal in other cases brought by California localities. 20-1778 (U.S.

Court 45