Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulment obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.
You May Also Like
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services
legaladmin
Holding: The district court’s judgment – which vacated as unlawful the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s imposition of a nationwide moratorium on evictions of any tenants who live in…
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, California
Holding: Administrative exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 takings claim when the government has reached a conclusive position.
Shinn v. Kayer
Holding: A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granting post-conviction relief to a man on Arizona’s death row for his claim of ineffective assistance of…
Alaska v. Wright
Holding: The requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) that a habeas petitioner be “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” is not met if the state judgment is simply…
Dunn v. Reeves
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in characterizing the Alabama court’s case-specific analysis as a “categorical rule” that any prisoner will always lose an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel…
Mays v. Hines
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred in revisiting on federal habeas review the decision of a Tennessee court supported by ample evidence that did not…
