Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Noncitizens' Rights In The Face Of Prolonged Detention: Johnson V. Arteaga-Martinez, Samantha L. Fawcett
Noncitizens' Rights In The Face Of Prolonged Detention: Johnson V. Arteaga-Martinez, Samantha L. Fawcett
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA"), codified in part at 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the federal government generally has ninety days to successfully deport a detained noncitizen who has reentered illegally after being removed once before. While exceptions to this time limit exist, the United States Supreme Court determined in 2001 that detention under Section 1231 cannot be indefinite.[1]
Now, more than two decades later, the Court must elaborate further. In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, the Court must decide how long a detainment can last beyond the ninety-day statutory limit while a detainee seeks relief from deportation through …
Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons
Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Sessions v. Dimaya seeks to determine whether the residual clause of a criminal provision, incorporated by reference into a civil immigration law, is void for vagueness. Although there is an instance of the Supreme Court applying the criminal vagueness standard to an immigration statute resulting in deportation, the United States argues that immigration law is not subject to that vagueness standard because it is civil and not criminal. This commentary argues that Sessions v. Dimaya presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to conform with its precedents, further the principles underlying vagueness doctrine, and appear to apply judicial rules consistently. …
Asking The Right Federal Questions: Merrill Lynch V. Manning And The Exclusive Jurisdiction Provisions Of The Securities Exchange Act, Seth Taylor
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Suppose you run a small corporation in the business of auctioneering stamps, coins, and other collectibles. Sensing that your corporation’s financial prospects are on the decline, large financial institutions drive the price of the company’s stock down. Your shareholders sue in state court alleging a breach of state law in manipulating stock prices while also referencing breaches of federal securities law.
Can the defendant financial institutions remove the case to federal court? This question is set to be answered by the Supreme Court in Manning v. Merrill Lynch, which deals specifically with whether section 27 of the Securities Exchange …