SCOTUSBlog
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
In an argument calendar released on Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments in eight cases over five days, on topics that include Sen. The post Justices set January argument calendar appeared first on SCOTUSblog. Gonzalez (Jan. 11): Whether a non-citizen who is detained under 8 U.S.C.
ABA Journal
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
SCOTUS drops arguments in immigration case The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday removed a case from its argument calendar in which 19 states sought to…
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
At the Lectern
AUGUST 12, 2022
These will be the first of eight opinions for cases argued on the June calendar. But, there are still three opinions outstanding for late-May calendar cases. presents issues relating to petitions for Special Immigrant Findings under Code of Civil Procedure section 155. (Briefs here ; oral argument videos here and here.).
At the Lectern
MAY 18, 2022
The Supreme Court today announced it will hear eight cases on it June calendar. Some Courts of Appeal are returning to in-person arguments, but the Supreme Court’s June calendar, like all of its calendars since April 2020 , will be remote and based in San Francisco. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1); b)(1); see People v.
At the Lectern
JANUARY 14, 2021
Superior Court , the case that took inordinate effort to schedule for oral argument, is one of five cases on the Supreme Court’s February calendar, announced today. The February calendar, like all arguments since April 2020 and for the foreseeable future, will be remote and based in San Francisco (see here , here , and here ).
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 7, 2022
After a few slow weeks on the relist front, the Supreme Court came roaring back this week with four newly relisted petitions that, if granted, will likely be added to the March 2023 argument calendar. Helaman Hansen ran an immigration-advising service. Two years ago, in United States v. Our first new relist this week, United States v.
At the Lectern
OCTOBER 13, 2022
Espinoza : The court limited the issue to: “Did the Court of Appeal err in ruling that defendant failed to adequately corroborate his claim that immigration consequences were a paramount concern and thus that he could not demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Penal Code section 1473.7?” ” People v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
100 
Let's personalize your content