Civil forfeiture occurs when the government seizes property under suspicion of its involvement in illegal activity. Such a proceeding is conducted in rem, or against the property itself, rather than in personam, or against the owner of the property; by contrast, criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding. For this reason, civil forfeiture case names often appear strange, such as United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues,
Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State," without congressional consent.
The Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section Two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids a
The following cases are major Supreme Court cases in the field of immigration law.
The Supreme Court invalidated a Texas statute that denied state funds to local school districts for the education of children unlawfully admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such children because the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Read the opinion here).
An alien who had been invited by U.S.
In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that held that legal permanent residents who had been convicted of a crime and had travelled abroad were eligible to face permanent removal proceedings. The question that the Court faced in Vartelas v. Holder was whether the IIRIRA applies retroactively to lawful permanent residents who were convicted of a crime and left the United States before enactment of the 1996 law. The Court held that the governing law at the time of conviction and not the IIRIRA applies.
The Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for Congress to grant special preference immigration status to legitimate children and their parents, or illegitimate children and their mothers, while excluding illegitimate children and their fathers. (Read the opinion here.)
The Supreme Court held that a provision of the Social Security Act denying eligibility for Medicare part B unless the applicant has been in the United States for a minimum of five years and has been admitted for permanent residency does not deny the applicant of liberty or property without due process of law. (Read the opinion here.)
