Remove Constitutional Law Remove Court Decisions Remove Immigration Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Encouraging Illegal Immigration

Constitutional Law Reporter

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.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules States Can’t Challenge Federal Immigration Policy

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court ruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. According to the eight-member majority, “federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”

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

Divided Supreme Court Limits Review of Factual Issues in Immigration Cases

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings enumerated under 8 U.S.C. 1255 , which would have made Patel and his wife lawful permanent residents. 1252(a)(2). Facts of the Case.

article thumbnail

August 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The intermediate appellate court held that the defendant was not entitled to present the defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and obstruction even if those alternatives were not effective. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Rejection of NEPA Challenges to Immigration Policies.

Court 40
article thumbnail

We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to

SCOTUSBlog

Three Republican senators – Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas – write that a precedent can be unworkable due to “a history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Court decisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards.”