Constitutional Law Government Immigration Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 26, 2023
The question before the justices was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech. Hansen challenged the constitutionality of the ban on “encouraging or inducing” immigration.
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
DECEMBER 19, 2022
Andrew Cuomo’s reelection campaign, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that if a private person exercises enough de facto influence over government decision-making or that state officials sufficiently rely on him, the person can be convicted of bribery even if he had no official title, no official power, and no official duties.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JANUARY 25, 2024
Fikre: The case revolves around the “No Fly List” established by the federal government in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Garland: The immigration case centers on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JANUARY 31, 2022
Gonzalez : The latest immigration case before the justices involves when individuals subject to removal are entitled to an individualized bond hearing. Arteaga-Martinez : The Court’s second immigration of the week also involves when bond hearings are required. The Court will decide: “Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 9, 2022
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.
JonathanTurley
JUNE 9, 2023
Newsom cited the kidnapping statute but apparently failed to read it or the underlying cases. There is nothing unlawful about conveying individuals who are lawfully in the country pending their immigration hearings. state once they are released by the federal government.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
104 
Let's personalize your content