Latest in U.S. Supreme Court
The decision carries implications for the rights of asylum-seekers facing expedited removal, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus and the judiciary’s role in checking executive power.
The Supreme Court cites past examples to justify its decision to postpone oral arguments. But those past postponements were different in key ways.
How have federal courts adjusted to navigate the COVID-19 outbreak?
Chief Justice John Roberts is a complex and subtly innovative jurist. The Supreme Court’s census decision revealed his skills, particularly seen against the backdrop of the gerrymandering case decided the same day. His ruling against the executive may actually strengthen deference to executive discretion when wielded by a future normal presidency, but in his decisive opinion (joined in full by no other justice), Roberts also refined a neglected counterdeference tool—pretext analysis.
The Supreme Court’s March 19 decision on in Nielsen v. Preap rejected challenges to mandatory detention of certain noncitizens—“aliens” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Generally speaking, mandatory immigration detention is an exception to the rule that confinement requires an individualized showing of flight risk or dangerousness.
On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court issued a 7-1 opinion in Jam v. International Financial Corporation, deciding that international organizations have the same level of immunity from lawsuits granted to foreign governments.
The unnamed foreign corporation challenging a subpoena issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed a cert petition seeking Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit's decision in favor of Mueller. The petition is available in partially redacted form below.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court on 5-4 decisions granted two stays of district court injunctions in Trump v. Karnoski and Trump v. Stockman, two cases challenging the Trump administration's ban on military service by transgender people. The orders are below.
18A625 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. KARNOSKI, RYAN, ET AL.
In August, two convicted terrorists were released from prison unexpectedly early. The two originally received enhanced sentences under a statute that established mandatory minimum sentence extensions for the use of a firearm in conjunction with a violent felony, but the judge who released them held that the statute was unconstitutional under Sessions v. Dimaya, a case the Supreme Court decided in April.