Search for: "DH v. People" Results 81 - 100 of 411
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Joshua Burd
Supreme Court’s Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 5:41 am by Jessica Zhang, Andrew Patterson
Putting these people in the criminal justice system would free up detention space for the DHS to keep people detained during their removal proceedings. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 5:21 pm
Sutherland's main work at DHS involved convincing Muslims and minorities that DHS does not racially profile. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
An unsettling decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals vitiated the protection afforded to respondents in the Third Circuit by Garcia v. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 2:06 am
USCIS and DOL Suspend H-2B Processing Following Florida Court Order DOL and DHS Announce Next Steps for the H-2B Program DOL and USCIS Resume H-2B Processing DOL Issues FAQs On H-2B Processing After Perez v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 6:00 am by Jane Chong
Szalczyk usefully holds that states and localities need not imprison people based on ICE detainer requests. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 12:53 pm by m zamora
In the cases found on Pacer, such as Sheppard et al v. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 7:23 am by Paul Rosenzweig
  Such legislation would almost certainly pass constitutional muster: Under South Dakota v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 10:17 am by Vishnu Kannan
Robert Chesney and Steve Vladeck shared the most recent episode of the National Security Law Podcast, in which they discuss domestic terrorism as a legal and political category, a pending cert petition before the Supreme Court in DHS v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 6:01 am by David A. Martin
The central part of the 117-page opinion,  captioned Texas v. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 1:26 pm by Brian Shyr
 However, on September 27, 2019, two and a half years after it was originally scheduled, oral argument in Save Jobs USA v. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 4:30 am by Josh Blackman
Originalism and the Suspension Clause in DHS v. [read post]