DOCSLIB.ORG

Immigration Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Immigration Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2016 Section 6: Immigration Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 6: Immigration" (2016). Supreme Court Preview. 261. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/261 Copyright c 2016 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview VI. Immigration In This Section: New Case: 15-1204 Jennings v. Rodriguez p. 316 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 316 “SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW NO-BAIL POLICY FOR IMMIGRANTS p. 336 AWAITING HEARINGS” Jess Bravin “HIGH COURT TO DECIDE IF IMMIGRANTS ENTITLED TO BOND HEARINGS” p. 338 Allissa Wickham “COURTS SAY DETAINED NON-CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BOND p. 340 HEARINGS” Richard Gonzales New Case: 15-1191 Lynch v. Morales-Santana p. 342 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 342 “GENDER-BASED CITIZENSHIP LAW GETS U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW” p. 353 Greg Stohr “SUPREME COURT CITIZENSHIP CASE: SHOULD THE GENDERS OF PARENTS' p. 354 MATTER?” Christina Beck “SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE” p. 356 Maggie Murphy “2ND CIRC. AXES CITIZENSHIP RULE WEIGHTED AGAINST FATHERS” p. 358 Allissa Wickham New Case: 13-502 United States v. Texas p. 360 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 360 “WHITE HOUSE ASKS SUPREME COURT FOR NEW REVIEW OF IMMIGRATION p. 361 POLICY WITH 9 JUSTICES” Jess Bravin “OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ASKS SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER p. 364 IMMIGRATION PLAN” Robert Barnes “SUPREME COURT TIE BLOCKS OBAMA IMMIGRATION PLAN” p. 366 Adam Liptak & Michael D. Shear “OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION PLAN APPEARS TO BE IN TROUBLE AFTER SUPREME p. 367 COURT HEARING” David G. Savage “U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE MAJOR CASE ON OBAMA IMMIGRATION p. 371 PLAN” Lawrence Hurley “A RULING AGAINST THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON IMMIGRATION” p. 374 Matt Ford Jennings v. Rodriguez 15-1204 Ruling Below: Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015) Rodriguez sought relief on behalf of himself and others detained for more than six months without bond hearing during immigration proceedings. The requested relief constituted individualized bond hearings with burden on government. The district court denied the petition. Rodriguez appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court, entered preliminary injunction. The government appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The District Court granted summary judgment to class and entered permanent injunction. Parties appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Question Presented: Whether aliens subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings if detention lasts six months; Whether aliens who fall under the mandatory detention provisions of Section 1226(c) must be afforded the same; Whether the government must demonstrate that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community in order to deny release on bond; Whether the length of detention must be weighed in the decision to release on bond; Whether new bond hearings must be afforded every six months. Alejandro RODRIGUEZ; Abdirizak Aden Farah; Jose Farias Cornejo; Yussuf Abdikadir; Abel Perez Ruelas, for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Petitioners–Appellees/Cross–Appellants, and Efren Orozco, Petitioner, v. Timothy ROBBINS, Field Office Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Homeland Security; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General; Wesley Lee, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Rodney Penner, Captain, Mira Loma Detention Center; Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff of Orange County; Nguyen, Officer, Officer–in–Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; Davis Nighswonger, Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; Respondents– Appellants/Cross–Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Decided on October 28, 2015 316 [Excerpt; some citations and footnotes omitted] WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a This is the latest decision in our decade-long flight risk or a danger to the community to examination of civil, i.e. non-punitive and justify the denial of bond. The government merely preventative, detention in the appeals from that judgment. We affirm in immigration context. As we noted in our part and reverse in part. prior decision in this case, Rodriguez v. Robbins, thousands of immigrants to the I. Background United States are locked up at any given time, awaiting the conclusion of administrative and On May 16, 2007, Alejandro Garcia judicial proceedings that will determine commenced this case by filing a petition for whether they may remain in this country. In a writ of habeas corpus in the Central District 2014, U.S. Immigration and Customs of California. Garcia's case was consolidated Enforcement (“ICE”) removed 315,943 with a similar case filed by Alejandro individuals, many of whom were detained Rodriguez, and the petitioners moved for during the removal process. According to the class certification. The motion was denied on most recently available statistics, ICE detains March 21, 2008. more than 429,000 individuals over the course of a year, with roughly 33,000 A three-judge panel of our court reversed the individuals in detention on any given day. district court's order denying class certification. We held that the proposed class Alejandro Rodriguez, Abdirizak Aden Farah, satisfied each requirement of Federal Rule of Jose Farias Cornejo, Yussuf Abdikadir, Abel Civil Procedure 23: The government Perez Ruelas, and Efren Orozco conceded that the class was sufficiently (“petitioners”) represent a certified class of numerous; each class member's claim turned noncitizens who challenge their prolonged on the common question of whether detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), detention for more than six months without a 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a) without bond hearing raises serious constitutional individualized bond hearings and concerns; Rodriguez's claims were determinations to justify their continued sufficiently typical of the class's because “the detention. Their case is now on appeal for the determination of whether [he] is entitled to a third time. After a three-judge panel of our bond hearing will rest largely on court reversed the district court's denial of interpretation of the statute authorizing his petitioners' motion for class certification, and detention”; and Rodriguez, through his after our decision affirming the district counsel, adequately represented the class. court's entry of a preliminary injunction, the The panel also noted that “any concern that district court granted summary judgment to the differing statutes authorizing detention of the class and entered a permanent injunction. the various class members will render class adjudication of class members' claims Under the permanent injunction, the impractical or undermine effective government must provide any class member representation of the class” could be who is subject to “prolonged detention”—six addressed through “the formation of months or more—with a bond hearing before subclasses.” an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). At that hearing, 317 The government petitioned our court for to class members detained pursuant to two of panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. In these four “general immigration detention response, the panel amended the opinion to statutes”— §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c). Under expand its explanation of why the Illegal the preliminary injunction, the government Immigration Reform and Immigrant was required to “provide each [detainee] with Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) does not bar a bond hearing” before an IJ and to “release certification of the class and, with that each Subclass member on reasonable amendment, unanimously voted to deny the conditions of supervision ... unless the government's petition. The full court was government shows by clear and convincing advised of the suggestion for rehearing en evidence that continued detention is justified banc, and no judge requested a vote on based on his or her danger to the community whether to rehear the matter. The government or risk of flight.” did not file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The government appealed, and on April 16, 2013, we affirmed. We applied the Court's On remand, the district court certified a class preliminary injunction standard set forth in defined as: Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which requires the petitioner to “…all non-citizens within the “establish that he is likely to succeed on the Central District of California who: (1) merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable are or were detained for longer than harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that six months pursuant to one of the the balance of equities tips in his favor, and general immigration detention that an injunction is in the public interest.” statutes pending completion of removal proceedings, including Evaluating petitioners' likelihood of success judicial review, (2) are not and have on the merits, we began with the premise that not been detained pursuant to a “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from national security detention statute, government custody, detention, or other and (3) have not been afforded a forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart hearing to determine whether their of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause detention is justified.” protects.” “Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the indefinite detention of a once- The district court also approved the proposed admitted alien ‘would raise serious subclasses, which correspond to the four constitutional concerns.’ ” statutes under which the class members are detained—8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), Addressing those concerns, we recognized 1226(c), and 1231(a). The class does not that we were not writing on a clean slate: include suspected terrorists, who are detained “[I]n a series of decisions since 2001, ‘the pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Supreme Court Term in Review Our Panel
    Annual Supreme Court Term in Review Our Panel Ian Heath Gershengorn Matthew Hellman Former Acting Solicitor General Partner, Co-Chair of the Appellate and Chair of the Appellate and Supreme Supreme Court Practice Court Practice Washington, DC | 202 639-6861 Washington, DC | 202 639-6869 Jessica Ring Amunson Tassity Johnson Partner, Co-Chair of the Appellate and Partner Supreme Court Practice Washington, DC | 202 637-6303 Washington, DC | 202 639-6023 Ishan K. Bhabha Adam G. Unikowsky Partner Partner Washington, DC | 202 637-6327 Washington, DC | 202 639-6041 1 Our Appellate and Supreme Court Practice • 21 oral arguments in the past six US Supreme Court Terms • Argued two cases in the pandemic telephonically • Routinely appear in federal and state appellate and trial courts and provide counseling on commercial and regulatory issues • More than a dozen members of the firm have argued before the US Supreme Court Appellate and Supreme Court 2 Changes at The Court Justice Ginsburg’s Legacy 4 Justice Ginsburg • Legal community and the country saddened by Justice Ginsburg’s death after a long battle with cancer • “Ruth Ginsburg was one of the members of the Court who achieved greatness before she became a great justice. I loved her to pieces.” – Justice Souter 5 Justice Ginsburg • “Her 483 majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions will steer the court for decades. They are written with the unaffected grace of precision.” – Chief Justice Roberts • “She held to—indeed, exceeded—the highest standards of legal craft. Her work was as careful as
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Institute Term Preview Report, October Term 2016
    GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER SUPREME COURT INSTITUTE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2016 PREVIEW September 2016 A LOOK AHEAD AT OCTOBER TERM 2016 1 The recently completed Supreme Court Term demonstrates the futility of forecasting expectations when a new Term is about to begin. At this time last year, no one could have foreseen what was by far the most significant event of October Term 2015 – the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The loss of the Court’s most vibrant member altered the outcome of some of last Term’s most significant cases, and continues to reverberate in the work and operations of the Court. By all appearances, Justice Scalia’s absence has affected the cases accepted for review, the scheduling of those cases for oral argument, and the disposition during the summer recess of stay motions in cases moving through the cert pipeline. The impact of Justice Scalia’s death, and the uncertain identity of the Justice who will occupy his seat, underscore the unsettled ideological balance on the Court and the power of a single vote. This report previews the Supreme Court’s argument docket for October Term 2016 (OT 2016). The Court has thus far accepted 31 cases for review (two pairs have been consolidated for briefing and argument) – fewer than half the cases that the Court typically hears each Term. Section I discusses some especially noteworthy cases on the Court’s argument docket. Section II organizes the cases accepted for review into subject-matter categories and provides a brief summary of each.
    [Show full text]
  • Coons V. Geithner - U.S
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Research Projects and Empirical Data Litigation 1-1-2011 Coons v. Geithner - U.S. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss United States Department of Health and Human Services Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca Part of the Health Law Commons Automated Citation United States Department of Health and Human Services, "Coons v. Geithner - U.S. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss" (2011). Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation. Paper 290. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca/290 This Memorandum is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Projects and Empirical Data at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Case 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 41 1 TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General 2 IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN 3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General 4 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney, District of Arizona 5 JENNIFER RICKETTS 6 Director 7 SHEILA LIEBER Deputy Director 8 JOEL McELVAIN TAMRA T. MOORE 9 ETHAN P. DAVIS Attorneys 10 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 11 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20001 12 (202) 514-9242 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 16 Nick Coons; et al., ) 17 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: CV-10-1714-PHX-GMS 18 ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION vs.
    [Show full text]
  • IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN Partner IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN, Partner
    IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN, Partner Mr. Gershengorn is chair of the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and is one of the nation’s premier Supreme Court and appellate advocates. Before joining the firm in 2017, he served in the Office of the Solicitor General at the US Department of Justice, first as Principal Deputy Solicitor General and then as Acting Solicitor General of the United States, a position he held from June 2016 until the end of the Obama administration in January 2017. Mr. Gershengorn’s practice focuses on advising clients on a range of complex litigation and strategy problems, with particular emphasis on commercial disputes and challenges involving government, regulatory, and other public policy issues. Since returning to the firm in the Fall of 2017, Mr. Gershengorn has appeared regularly in the state and federal appellate courts, arguing on behalf of clients IAN HEATH such as McKesson Corporation, FanDuel, the Recording Industry Association of GERSHENGORN America, FirstTrust Bank, General Dynamics, and Charter Communications. Partner Prior to rejoining Jenner & Block, Mr. Gershengorn served in the Solicitor WASHINGTON, DC General’s Office. While there, Mr. Gershengorn argued thirteen cases at the US Office: 202 639-6869 Email: [email protected] Supreme Court. He also supervised the government’s briefing in a range of high-profile cases, including those involving the Affordable Care Act, Dodd- PRACTICE GROUPS Frank, election law and redistricting, immigration reform, the Fair Housing Act, Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Title VII, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and same-sex marriage. Litigation Native American Law Prior to his service in the Solicitor General’s office, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech Marvin Ammori Free Press; University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 61 | Issue 2 Article 2 3-2009 Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech Marvin Ammori Free Press; University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ammori, Marvin (2009) "Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 61: Iss. 2, Article 2. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol61/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech Marvin Ammori* I. INTRODUCTION: CONTENT-BASED LAWS THAT PROMOTE FAVORED CONTENT .................................................................. 274 II. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON CONTENT ................................... 283 III. DESCRIPTIVE ARGUMENT: CONTENT PROMOTION DOES NOT RECEIVE HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, AND MUST MERELY BE VIEW POINT-NEUTRAL .............................................................. 286 A. Doctrinal Areas Endorsing Viewpoint-Neutral Content P rom otion .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court Institute
    GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER SUPREME COURT INSTITUTE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2016 PREVIEW September 2016 A LOOK AHEAD AT OCTOBER TERM 2016 1 The recently completed Supreme Court Term demonstrates the futility of forecasting expectations when a new Term is about to begin. At this time last year, no one could have foreseen what was by far the most significant event of October Term 2015 – the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The loss of the Court’s most vibrant member altered the outcome of some of last Term’s most significant cases, and continues to reverberate in the work and operations of the Court. By all appearances, Justice Scalia’s absence has affected the cases accepted for review, the scheduling of those cases for oral argument, and the disposition during the summer recess of stay motions in cases moving through the cert pipeline. The impact of Justice Scalia’s death, and the uncertain identity of the Justice who will occupy his seat, underscore the unsettled ideological balance on the Court and the power of a single vote. This report previews the Supreme Court’s argument docket for October Term 2016 (OT 2016). The Court has thus far accepted 31 cases for review (two pairs have been consolidated for briefing and argument) – fewer than half the cases that the Court typically hears each Term. Section I discusses some especially noteworthy cases on the Court’s argument docket. Section II organizes the cases accepted for review into subject-matter categories and provides a brief summary of each.
    [Show full text]
  • Starr Announces Scholarship Goals
    WE’RE THERE WHEN YOU CAN’T BE TheWEDNESDAY | SEPTEMBER Baylor 15, 2010 Lariatwww.baylorlariat.com SPORTS Page 5 NEWS Page 6 A&E Page 4 Talented targets Starr guest at service Tasty recipes on the go Wide receivers Kendall Wright Baylor President Starr attends Don’t have a meal plan? Check out these tasty and Terrance Williams give interfaith gathering at the Center recipes that students can easily make, including Robert Griffin options for Jewish Studies garlic chicken and a BBQ sandwich Vol. 111 No. 10 © 2010, Baylor University In Print Starr announces scholarship goals >> Political activism The Baylor chapter of the By Sara Tirrito described the challenges of the grams such as mission trips and scholarships for students.” it’s $10 a month, $10 a year, or Staff writer Young Conservatives of cost of higher education at Bay- study abroad. Houston senior and Student more than that — that little bit lor and also reported on their Lori Fogleman, director of Body President Michael Wright will make a difference in a young Texas urges students to vote President Ken Starr will an- unfolding effort to come forward media communications, said said he has confidence that alum- person’s life and help contribute Page 3 nounce the President’s Scholar- with a specific proposal to the all classifications are eligible for ni will be willing to make contri- to their education.” ship Initiative today, which poses Board of Regents to address that these scholarships, some of which butions so that the goal can be Richard Willis, a member of a goal of increasing student schol- problem,” Starr said.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMITTEE on RULES of PRACTICE and PROCEDURE (Standing Committee)
    COMMITTEES ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CHAIRS and REPORTERS Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice Honorable David G. Campbell and Procedure United States District Court (Standing Committee) Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse 401 West Washington Street, SPC 58 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2156 Reporter, Committee on Rules of Practice Professor Daniel R. Coquillette and Procedure Boston College Law School (Standing Committee) 885 Centre Street Newton Centre, MA 02459 Chair, Advisory Committee on Appellate Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch Rules United States Court of Appeals Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street, 4th Floor Denver, CO 80257-1823 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Appellate Professor Gregory E. Maggs Rules The George Washington University Law School 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20052 Chair, Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta Rules United States Court of Appeals Richard H. Chambers Court of Appeals Building 125 South Grand Avenue, Room 305 Pasadena, CA 91105-1621 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Professor S. Elizabeth Gibson Bankruptcy Rules Burton Craige Professor of Law 5073 Van Hecke-Wettach Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill C.B. #3380 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 Associate Reporter, Advisory Committee on Professor Michelle M. Harner Bankruptcy Rules Francis King Carey Professor of Law Director, Business Law Program University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law 500 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Effective: October 1, 2016 Committee Chairs and Reporters Page 1 Revised: October 25, 2016 Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Honorable John D. Bates United States District Court E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4114 Washington, DC 20001 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Professor Edward H.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 15-1359 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN D. ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PETITIONERS v. IBRAHIM TURKMEN, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR. Solicitor General Counsel of Record BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN Deputy Solicitor General CURTIS E. GANNON Assistant to the Solicitor General DOUGLAS N. LETTER BARBARA L. HERWIG H. THOMAS BYRON III Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Docket Nos. 13-981, 13-999, 13-1002, 13-1003, 13-1662 IBRAHIM TURKMEN, AKHIL SACHDEVA, AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ANSER MEHMOOD, BENAMAR BENATTA, AHMED KHALIFA, SAEED HAMMOUDA, AND PURNA BAJRACHARYA, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS v. DENNIS HASTY, FORMER WARDEN OF THE METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, MICHAEL ZENK, FORMER WARDEN OF THE METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, JAMES SHERMAN, FORMER METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER ASSOCIATE WARDEN FOR CUSTODY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JOHN ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JAMES W. ZIGLAR, FORMER COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES SALVATORE LOPRESTI, FORMER METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER CAPTAIN, JOSEPH CUCITI, FORMER METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS* Argued: May 1, 2014 Decided: June 17, 2015 * The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMITTEE on RULES of PRACTICE and PROCEDURE (Standing Committee)
    COMMITTEES ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CHAIRS and REPORTERS Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton and Procedure United States Court of Appeals (Standing Committee) 260 Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse 85 Marconi Boulevard Columbus, OH 43215 Reporter, Committee on Rules of Practice Professor Daniel R. Coquillette and Procedure Boston College Law School (Standing Committee) 885 Centre Street Newton Centre, MA 02459 Chair, Advisory Committee on Appellate Honorable Steven M. Colloton Rules United States Court of Appeals U.S. Courthouse Annex, Suite 461 110 East Court Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309-2044 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Appellate Professor Gregory E. Maggs Rules The George Washington University Law School 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20052 Chair, Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta Rules United States Court of Appeals Richard H. Chambers Court of Appeals Building 125 South Grand Avenue, Room 305 Pasadena, CA 91105-1621 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Professor S. Elizabeth Gibson Bankruptcy Rules 5073 Van Hecke-Wettach Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill C.B. #3380 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 Associate Reporter, Advisory Committee on Professor Michelle M. Harner Bankruptcy Rules University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law 500 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Effective: October 1, 2015 Committee Chairs and Reporters Page 1 Revised: May 3, 2016 Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Honorable John D. Bates United States District Court E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 4114 Washington, DC 20001 Reporter, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Professor Edward H.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Judge Janet Difiore, New York Court of Appeals, Delivers IJA's
    the newsletter of the institute of judicial administration at the nyu school of law winter|spring 2019 IN THIS ISSUE Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, New York 1 Chief Judge Janet DiFiore Delivers IJA’s Brennan Lecture Court of Appeals, Delivers IJA’s 24th on State Courts and Social Justice—Texas Chief Justice Annual Brennan Lecture on State Courts Nathan L. Hecht to deliver the 25th Lecture and Social Justice on “The Excellence 2 Effective Appellate Advocacy: Initiative and the Rule of Law” Views from the Bench and the Bar he chief judge of New York State’s program focus was on court congestion and 3 highest court, the New York Court of delays making litigation time-consuming and 22nd Annual Employment Law Workshop for Federal Judges Appeals, delivered the 2018 Annual unaffordable for low-income, working families William J. Brennan Lecture on State and small businesses. Other changes include (1) Mid-Career Seminar for Federal T Courts and Social Justice to an establishing the nation’s first Bankruptcy Judges audience of judges, prosecutors, opioid intervention court link- 4 students, faculty, and lawyers. ing high-risk opioid-users to The US Court of Appeals for Chief Judge Janet DiFiore dis- intensive treatment within 24 the Armed Forces: An Article I cussed her Excellence Initia- hours of arrest; and (2) harness- Court in an Article III World tive, a system-wide campaign ing technology in New York City by Judge Andrew Effron to promote efficient, accessible, Family Court to protect victims high-quality justice that pro- of domestic violence, includ- 7 duces fair, effective, and lasting ing instituting a remote order Remembrances: Stephen Shapiro, Mayer Brown & Platt outcomes for all litigants.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 61 Issue 2 Article 2 3-2009 Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech Marvin Ammori Free Press; University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ammori, Marvin (2009) "Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 61 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol61/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content-Based Promotion of Democratic Speech Marvin Ammori* I. INTRODUCTION: CONTENT-BASED LAWS THAT PROMOTE FAVORED CONTENT .................................................................. 274 II. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON CONTENT ................................... 283 III. DESCRIPTIVE ARGUMENT: CONTENT PROMOTION DOES NOT RECEIVE HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, AND MUST MERELY BE VIEW POINT-NEUTRAL .............................................................. 286 A. Doctrinal Areas Endorsing Viewpoint-Neutral Content P rom otion .......................................................................
    [Show full text]