Connect with us

World News

US Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy case – JURIST

Published

on

The United States Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear oral arguments in Biden v. Texas. The Biden administration is seeking a declaration that it can cease enforcement of the “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy first implemented by former President Trump. Under the policy, formerly called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), certain non-citizens must return to Mexico to await a decision on their immigration proceedings. Rights groups such as ALCU have criticized the policy, calling it “a humanitarian catastrophe.” Other critics say the practice amounts to “refoulement” in violation of Article 33 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. A government practices refoulement when it returns refugees to territories where they may be in danger. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted to end the program in June 2021 and October 2021. After a series of decisions against the government, the US Court of Justice Fifth Circuit appeals affirmed the 14 December 2021 that the Biden administration must reinstate the policy. The administration filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 29, 2021. The case before the Supreme Court revolves around two main issues. First, the Trump administration relied on 8 USC § 1225(b)(2)(C) to institute the MPP. The section allows the government to return a noncitizen who arrives “from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States” to that territory pending immigration proceedings. According to the Fifth Circuit, that same provision “requires DHS to continue to use MPP.” The Biden administration is seeking the Supreme Court’s word on whether 8 USC § 1225 does in fact require MPP. Second, the Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to decide “[w]whether the appellate court was wrong in concluding that the Secretary’s new decision ending the MPP had no legal effect.” The government accuses the Fifth Circuit of ignoring “principles of administrative law” in reaching its decision. The government must file a brief on the merits on or before March 14, 2022. The defendant is due to file his brief on April 7, 2022. The case is set for oral arguments during the second week of April.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Indian court keeps journalist in police custody over tweet – JURIST

Published

on

The Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday ordered journalist and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair to be held in police custody for four days. Zubair was arrested on Monday for the offenses of hurting religious sentiments and inciting enmity under Sections 153 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2018, Zubair posted a tweet showing a hotel whose name he changed from “Honeymoon Hotel” to “Hanuman Hotel”. Hanuman is a Hindu god. Delhi police arrested him based on a complaint about that tweet, which alleged that Zubair tweeted a “questionable image for the purpose of deliberately insulting the god of a particular religion.” accused for posting the tweet in question will be retrieved at the behest of the accused Mohammed Zubair from his residence in Bangalore, that the accused has not cooperated and (with) the disclosure statement recorded, four days PC (police custody) preventive detention of the accused will be concedes as the accused will be taken to Bangalore. Zubair’s arrest has been condemned by international organizations and national news organizations, including United Nations chief Antonio Guterres, Amnesty International, the Press Club of India and other media outlets.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022