|
|
|
High court says immigration deadlines can be extended
Legal News Feed |
2015/06/15 16:06
|
The Supreme Court says federal appeals courts have authority to decide whether people facing deportation should be able to extend the deadlines in immigration proceedings.
The justices ruled Monday in favor of Noel Reyes Mata, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States for nearly 15 years. The government began deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to an assault charge.
An immigration judge ordered him deported. Mata appealed, but his lawyer failed to file paperwork within the 90 days required. A new attorney tried to reopen the case, but the Board of Immigration Appeals refused.
Mata appealed to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but the court said it had no authority to order a deadline extension. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court hears arguments over Garner grand jury record
Court News |
2015/06/10 16:06
|
An appeals court is revisiting the issue of whether the grand jury record in the Eric Garner chokehold death case should stay sealed.
The three-judge panel is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday morning in Brooklyn.
A judge on Staten Island had ruled in March that the records would remain under seal. The parties seeking the release of the minutes appealed. They include the New York Civil Liberties Union, Legal Aid Society and the Public Advocate's office.
Officers stopped Garner last summer on suspicion of illegal cigarette sales. In the course of taking him into custody, an officer wrapped his arm around Garner's neck. Garner lost consciousness and died.
The NYCLU and others had asked the court to order the Staten Island district attorney to release the grand jury transcript. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another Arizona immigration law dismantled by the courts
Court News |
2015/06/05 01:06
|
The U.S. Supreme Court landed the final blow against an Arizona law that denied bail to immigrants who are in the country illegally and are charged with certain felonies, marking the latest in a series of state immigration policies that have since been thrown out by the courts.
The nation's highest court on Monday rejected a bid from metro Phoenix's top prosecutor and sheriff to reinstate the 2006 law after a lower appeals court concluded late last year that it violated civil rights by imposing punishment before trial.
While a small number of Arizona's immigration laws have been upheld, the courts have slowly dismantled most of the other statutes that sought to draw local police into immigration enforcement.
"At this point, we can say that was a failed experiment," said Cecillia Wang, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who led the challenge of the law. "Like the rest of the country, Arizona should move on from that failed experiment."
Voters overwhelmingly approved the no-bail law as the state's politicians were feeling pressure to take action on illegal immigration. It automatically denied bail to immigrants charged with a range of felonies that included shoplifting, aggravated identity theft, sexual assault and murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court sides with tribes in fight over land decisions
Court News |
2015/06/05 01:06
|
In a victory for Native American tribes, an appeals court ruled Thursday that states cannot use negotiations for a Native American casino to challenge the federal government's decisions to recognize a tribe and set aside land for it.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said states have to use a separate process to contest those decisions and have a window of six years to file their challenge.
The decision removes the uncertainty many tribes faced about their land status after a smaller 9th Circuit panel reached a different conclusion, said Joe Webster, a partner with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker who was closely watching the case.
"This is certainly an important decision for tribes," he said.
The ruling came in a fight between California and the Humboldt County-based Big Lagoon Rancheria over the tribe's plan for a Las Vegas-style casino.
The tribe accused the state in a lawsuit of failing to negotiate a casino deal in good faith, and largely won its case in federal district court. A call to the state attorney general's office for comment about Thursday's ruling wasn't immediately returned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
