Search for: "United States v. Brown" Results 1 - 20 of 4,140
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2025, 2:46 am by Ram Eachambadi | JURIST Staff
If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order… Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia…We are told that neither government has the power to act. [read post]
18 Apr 2025, 5:50 am by John Mikhail
A simple search confirms that this phrase is never used—not once—in either Elk or United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2025, 3:26 pm by Josh Blackman
Citizens approved an amendment to the state constitution that opposed Brown and desegregation. [read post]
16 Apr 2025, 11:46 am by Hina Shamsi
Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act (which is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act) and deployed federal troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s Brown v. [read post]
13 Apr 2025, 1:54 pm by Ilya Somin
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem and the United States of America in the suit, which was filed in Montana federal district court. [read post]
11 Apr 2025, 2:40 pm by Scott Bomboy
On March 15, 2025, the United States had removed Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 9:46 pm by Stephen Masterson
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alleged that South Sudan’s transitional government refused to accept repatriated citizens deported from the United States. [read post]
1 Apr 2025, 6:39 am by jonathanturley
Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election. [read post]
31 Mar 2025, 6:58 am by Dan Bressler
An actual conflict exists where an attorney has ‘divided and incompatible loyalties within the same matter necessarily preclusive of single-minded advocacy,’ whereas a potential conflict is one that may never be realized (People v Cortez, 22 NY3d 1061, 1068 [2014]). [read post]