Search for: "United States v. Flores" Results 161 - 180 of 545
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2016, 5:50 pm by Eugene Volokh
The constitutional rights at issue here are the rights to due process and equal protection, as protected by both the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 6:35 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Information in police disciplinary files often qualifies as impeachment evidence which, under Brady v. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 2:45 pm by EEM
 [abstract]EU Law and the Detainability of Asylum-Seekers [abstract]Territory, Procedures and Rights: Border Procedures in European Asylum Law [abstract]Exploring the Role of Vulnerability in Immigration Detention [abstract]Everyday Injustices: Barriers to Access to Justice for Immigration Detainees in Canada [abstract] [related working paper]From Routine to Exceptional: Introduction to UNHCR’s Global Strategy – Beyond Detention 2014–2019 Supporting… [read post]
12 Dec 2015, 6:01 pm by Gerard N. Magliocca
United States (the anti-commandeering principle)Clinton v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 1:32 pm
We reluctantly affirm Flores’s conviction under the high bar of the plain error standard. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:00 pm
Family detention is the cruelest expression of this approach—a deliberate choice to lock up families in order to deter others from seeking refuge in the United States. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 10:46 am
At oral argument in the Supreme Court’s most recent Origination Clause case some years ago, United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 6:52 am by Joy Waltemath
After reviewing all of the challenged provisions, the court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 10:15 am
United States, which was argued less than a month before the election, on October 11, 1944. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 10:19 am by Lindsay M. Harris
The judge gave a withering critique of the government’s argument that the terms of the original Flores v. [read post]