Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923) – Overturning a lower court decision, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on cropping contracts, which technically dealt with labor rather than land and were used by many Issei to avoid the restrictions of California's alien land act. Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923) Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (1924)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws.
Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the ability for immigrants legally residing under temporary protected status to apply for permanent resident status through a green card.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court, in which the justices considered the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration.
In 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of a tough immigration law enacted in Arizona. Only two of the justices who were in the majority in that case are still on the court: Chief ...
The Supreme Court last year heard arguments over a separate bid by Republican state officials to intervene in defense of Trump's public charge rule but ultimately dismissed the case without ...
Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 [1] was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional. [2] [3]