20 results for 'cat:"Constitution" AND cat:"Immigration"'.
J. Rambin reverses a trial court order denying a male noncitizen’s request to dismiss a criminal misdemeanor charge against him, pursuant to the governor’s order to jail migrants for illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico border. Citing similar evidence in precedent cases, the non-citizen met his burden of showing the governor’s order has the discriminatory effect and purpose of selective prosecution based on gender discrimination. Reversed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Van Cleef, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 06-24-40-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Stevens reverses and remands a trial court's order denying a non-citizen's claim of selective prosecution under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment. The defendant was arrested for criminal trespass on a railroad, a misdemeanor, pursuant to Governor Greg Abbott’s disaster proclamation in 34 counties to prevent the “ongoing surge” of illegal migrants from Mexico. The court of appeals is constrained to rule under another district's precedent, which found the state failed to show its prosecution of male, but not female, immigrants served a governmental interest in border protection. Reversed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Stevens, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 06-24-39-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Sullivan finds that the board of immigration appeals properly held that plaintiff, a Hong Kong native, was deportable for theft and forgery as crimes of moral turpitude. In the action, the agency defined "conviction" as indicating that the predicate proceedings included constitutional protections for the accused, such as speedy trial and confrontation rights, and determined those circumstances had been present. Meanwhile, the statutory phrase "crime involving moral turpitude" is not unconstitutionally vague. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Sullivan, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 22-6185, Categories: constitution, immigration
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in denying a migrant's pretrial writ of habeas corpus after he was arrested for trespassing as part of Texas' push to deter undocumented migration on the southern border. An appeals court has already ruled the practice is likely unconstitutional since the state is targeting men. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00285-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00204-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00201-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00203-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00200-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00202-CR, Categories: constitution, immigration, Trespass
J. Settle dismisses the security company's lawsuit alleging that the state passed EHB 1090, an allegedly unconstitutional bill that generally prohibits the operation of a private detention facility. Among other factors, the security company's concern that EHB 1090 would allow the state to prevent it from operating a facility under a contract with the U.S. Marshals Service is unfounded, because the security company does not seek this relief in its complaint and EHB 1090 authorizes the U.S. Marshals Service to contract with private detention entities.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Settle, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv5313, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Government, immigration
J. Kirsch finds unconstitutional a state law prohibiting New Jersey, its political subdivisions and private entities from contracting to own or operate a facility which detains people for violations of civil immigration law. By preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from contracting with in-state companies to aid in its enforcement of federal immigration law, the state law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution since immigration detention is a function that "is and always has been performed solely by the federal government."
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Kirsch, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv967, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, immigration, Preemption
J. Willett finds the trial court properly dismissed the immigration attorney’s claims against DHS arising from its seizing of his phone after his surname appeared in connection with an investigation involving an arms dealer. The attorney lacks standing to seek declaratory relief related solely to past events, and his constitutional theories upon which he seeks an injunction requiring DHS to delete seized data have no merit. His rights were not violated by the DHS’s search of his phone. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Willett, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 22-10772, Categories: constitution, immigration, International Law
J. Walker upholds the district court's rejection of an American wife's constitutional challenge to the denial of a visa for her noncitizen husband. Marriage does not include the right to live in America with a person's spouse. Affirmed.
Court: DC Circuit, Judge: Walker, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 22-5009 , Categories: constitution, immigration
J. Rodriguez reverses the trial court's denial of a noncitizen's petition for habeas corpus in connection with his arrest for trespass during the state's operation to deter illegal border crossings. The noncitizen made a prima facie case of gender discrimination by arguing the state selectively prosecutes men, but not women, under the operation. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 04-22-00623-CR , Categories: constitution, Habeas, immigration
J. Ikuta finds that the district court improperly granted an illegal immigrant's motion to dismiss an indictment for illegally reentering the United States. The illegal immigrant's Fifth Amendment claim was facially invalid. Reversed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Ikuta, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 21-10233, Categories: constitution, immigration
J. Ikuta finds that the district court properly entered conviction for attempted illegal reentry after deportation. The illegal immigrant's motion to dismiss for violating the Speedy Trial Act was denied. The lower court was correct in assessing periods of delay as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Ikuta, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 21-50298, Categories: constitution, immigration, Covid-19