Remove Court Remove Court Rules Remove Immigration Remove Misdemeanor
article thumbnail

Freedom of Movement: Understanding Immigration Through The Lens Of Jaywalking Laws

The Crime Report

With the decriminalization of jaywalking in Nevada , Virginia and now California — the “ Freedom to Walk ” Act will take effect in Los Angeles in the new year — it appears that people understand this when it comes to jaywalking, but not when it comes to immigration. . In 1969, the Supreme Court held in Shapiro v. Controlling Movement.

article thumbnail

Court expands government’s ability to deport noncitizens for offenses related to obstruction of justice

SCOTUSBlog

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. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held in Pugin’s case that it did not.

Felony 100
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

March 2018 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Federal Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Motions to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Law of Nuisance Could Apply, Despite AEP v. It demands to be governed by as universal a rule of apportioning responsibility as is available.” FEATURED CASE. ExxonMobil Corp.

Court 40
article thumbnail

Travis County Judges Can’t Hear Appeals From Migrants Arrested Under Texas Border Security Push, Court Rules

The Crime Report

“ Travis County judges can’t hear appeals from migrants arrested under Texas border security push, court rules ” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

article thumbnail

August 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The Supreme Court reversed an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming a superior court determination that the defendant could not present a necessity defense.

Court 40
article thumbnail

The Case Against the Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas

JonathanTurley

The hearings this week may reveal conduct that reaches the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment. Immigration has long been an area of intense policy disagreements. 2680(a) for policy-based judgments.