The Supreme Court held that the continued exclusion of an entrant noncitizen without hearing does not amount to unlawful detention, because a noncitizen seeking entry does not possess constitutional rights. The Court also held that courts may not temporarily admit a such a noncitizen into the United States pending arrangements for his departure abroad. (Read the opinion here.)
The Supreme Court held that three factory surveys conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not constitute a seizure of the entire work force under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court also held that the individual questioning regarding citizenship of the respondents, U.S. citizens and legal residents, did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Read the opinion here.)
The Supreme Court held that to qualify for asylum, applicants have to show that they have a “well-founded fear” of persecution, and that asylum-seekers can satisfy this standard even if they do not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted if returned to their home country. (Read the opinion here.)
The Supreme Court held that deportation hearings are civil proceedings, the defendant cannot suppress his or her identity even if subject to an unlawful arrest, and the exclusionary rule does not apply to deportation hearings. Read the opinion here.
The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General did not have the authority to order the permanent exclusion and deportation of a lawful permanent resident of the United States without providing notice of the charges against him and the opportunity to be heard. Read the opinion here.
444 U.S. 252 (1980)
The Supreme Court held that the U.S. government must prove intent to surrender U.S. citizenship and not just the voluntary commission of a expatriating act and that the appropriate standard of proof for analyzing the citizen’s conduct would be proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court also held that it is permissible for the government to have a rebuttable presumption that the expatriating act was committed voluntarily. (Read the opinion here.)
The Supreme Court case which held sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070) were preempted by federal law, but that section 2(B) must be allowed to be construed in practice before deciding whether the provision should be enjoined. (Read the opinion here).
The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona Senate Bill 1070) is a legislative act signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer that is widely viewed as the most stringent anti-illegal immigration measure passed in decades. The Act has received national and international attention and has spurred considerable controversy.
Arizona Senate Bill Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE 1070