Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The ruling could also have a bearing on roughly 200,000 deportation cases that were thrown out by immigration judges because the Department of Homeland Security didn’t file paperwork with the ...
Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958) – affirmed the provision revoking the citizenship of any American who had voted in an election in a foreign country, as a legitimate exercise (under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause) of Congress' authority to regulate foreign affairs and avoid potentially embarrassing diplomatic situations
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), was an immigration decision by the United States Supreme Court.In a 6–3 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled against the federal government, holding that deportation hearing notices need to be in a single document.
Agreement percentages are based only on the listed cases in which a justice participated and are rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percentage point. Individual opinion counts may not match the Supreme Court's totals due to cases where justices jointly author opinions, which is counted separately here, but only once in the Supreme Court's ...
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first opinion shields the EPA from being forced to release draft opinions on new rules. In FOIA and immigration rulings, Supreme Court gives government the benefit of ...
The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are often left out of regular partisan sniping, but they're absolutely crucial to determining policy in America. Three cases were consolidated and ...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: 16-111: 2018-06-04 By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's actions in assessing a cakeshop owner's reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding celebration violated the Free Exercise Clause. Minnesota Voters ...
The Biden administration and civil rights organizations sued Texas to stop the law, claiming SB 4 is unconstitutional because it interferes with federal immigration laws. The law’s proponents ...