Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A federal judge in North Dakota blocked a Biden administration rule that allowed DACA recipients to sign up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.. In a ruling Monday, U.S. District ...
A federal appeals court on Friday dealt the immigration program known as DACA a legal setback, keeping the program alive but teeing up a showdown at the Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, a ...
A federal appeals court Friday upheld a lower court ruling that found protections for so-called Dreamers to be unlawful, suspending the program in Texas while otherwise limiting its ruling in the ...
Whether, even though Congress excluded from list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release. October 21, 2024 (February 25, 2025) FCC v. Consumers' Research: 24-354 24-422
On December 14, 2017, government lawyers argued that discovery was improper. There was no ruling from the court. [8] On June 28, 2020, the Supreme Court concluded that Trump’s attempt to end DACA was unlawful, but refused to rule on the merits of the program itself, sending that back to district court, where oral arguments took place in July ...
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the lifting of the injunctions, with Alito writing, "Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing." [28] The Court heard oral argument on March 18, 2024. [29]
A federal appeals court appeared unlikely to fully reverse a judge’s ruling that would end the immigration program known as DACA, which protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the ...
On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious.