Court Rules Immigration Litigating Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
MAY 16, 2023
Share In an opinion released on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens subject to deportation do not have to ask the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its allegedly erroneous decisions before seeking judicial review in the federal courts of appeals. The case, Santos-Zacaria v.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 29, 2024
The district court ruled for Medical Marijuana and the other companies on Horn’s RICO claim. The companies came to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to take up the case and weigh in. The justices granted two other petitions for review on Monday: Bouarfa v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 12, 2023
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.”
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 24, 2023
Share Federal immigration law requires the deportation of noncitizens who are convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in Pugin v. Such “redundancies are common in statutory drafting,” Kavanaugh wrote. citizen].”
Attorney at Work
MAY 31, 2022
The statute of limitations ran out due to his forgetting the deadline. A Chicago immigration lawyer moved for an emergency stay of removal for a client after an asylum application was denied. The Tennessee lawyer failed to add a calendar reminder to track the statute of limitations deadline. The Solution: Integrated Court Rules.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 26, 2021
1326 , they must prove the existence of a prior removal order adjudicated by a federal immigration agency. Refugio Palomar-Santiago’s case illustrates two broader themes: first, the various interactions between the civil immigration and criminal legal systems, and second, the ongoing complexity of the immigration laws.
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 11, 2023
Groff sued USPS in federal court under Title VII for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices. The trial court ruled for the Postal Service under Hardison , and the U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of that phrase. Yegiazaryan v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
108 
Let's personalize your content