Remove Court Rules Remove Felony Remove Legal Remove Statute
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court rules against Mexico citizen contesting indictment

JURIST

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against a non-US citizen who was contesting his indictment for unlawful re-entry into the country. In 1998, an immigration judge found that Palomar-Santiago had committed an aggravated felony under the federal immigration laws when he was convicted for driving under the influence.

article thumbnail

Court limits definition of “violent felony” in federal gun-possession penalty

SCOTUSBlog

Share A fractured Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a key phrase in the Armed Career Criminal Act, ruling that crimes involving recklessness do not count as “violent felonies” for the purpose of triggering a key sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed that decision on Thursday. The case, Borden v.

Felony 124
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

Court rejects non-citizen’s challenge to criminal re-entry charge

SCOTUSBlog

Eight years later, an immigration judge found that his California conviction for driving under the influence was an aggravated felony under the federal immigration laws. But six years after his deportation, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. But in an eight-page opinion by Sotomayor, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Court 130
article thumbnail

On the narrow road to challenge a federal conviction, when is a vehicle “inadequate”?

SCOTUSBlog

Last year, the court restricted the ability of state prisoners to develop new evidence to support claims that their attorneys failed to investigate leads that could have shown they were factually innocent. Jones involves a federal prisoner who is legally innocent – the conduct a jury found he committed isn’t a crime.

Felony 96
article thumbnail

Dobbs’s history and the future of abortion and privacy law

SCOTUSBlog

Dobbs reiterates the long-established principle that unwritten rights, to be enforced by courts, must be deeply rooted in our history. Applying that test, Dobbs holds: (a) From the 1200s to 1960, no statute, no English case, no state case, no federal case, no legal treatise, and no law-review article hinted at an abortion right.

Laws 144
article thumbnail

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?

JonathanTurley

He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly.

Statute 57
article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Court decisions support that theory of consent. Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Statute 104