On February 28, 2018 Judge William H Orrick was presented a case of the City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions and State of CA v. Sessions. [http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions] The procedural posture was a motion to dismiss and the issue at hand was regarding immigration status verses enforcement.
The case was prompted by the Trump Administration’s new “Notice and Access Requirements” policy issued on July 25, 2017 requiring that sanctuary cities comply with the new order to received federal funding. In this case, the issue is between San Francisco’s eligibility for federal funding that it has historically received as a sanctuary city and the United States Department
…show more content…
For a Federal law enforcement grant, the United States is authorized to require the sharing of information regarding criminal aliens being held. Any claim regarding the lack of information should be dismissed 2. Both the city of San Francisco and the state of California are not in compliance with Section 1373 and anything related to it should be dismissed. They ascertain that the immigration system is based on cooperation, The federal government turns over alien criminals to the local jurisdiction for prosecution of a local law, and the trade is that the federal government is informed when they are released so they can deport them. Therefore, the address and release date are a critical component to immigration status. He also stated that congress has the power to require information sharing between levels of …show more content…
He asserts that since this is a motion to dismiss, all that was needed today are facts to support a legal theory. Shearman claimed that there have been three other attempts where the defense has incorporated their own immigration regulation into legal statues: 1. Using a narrow administration statue to justify imposing any condition they want (notification access conditions). 2. Intend to inject into JAG Civil immigration enforcement 3. They take 1373 to transfer into a prohibition of jurisdiction restricting access to any personal info. http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions. Shearman, along with Aileen McGrath and Sarah Eisenberg, with the city of San Francisco, state that the city of San Francisco and the state of California have sufficient claims for relief and that they are in compliance with Section 1373. They further claim that the US Department of Justice is violating the separation of powers and seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
...rts. The Supreme court often get requests to revisit the case, however the supreme regularly declines the offer.
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric...
In 2008, Luis M. Sanchez Valle was charged by the federal courts with trafficking weapons and ammunition in interstate commerce, and then was charged for the same offense by the Puerto Rican Courts. After Valle was convicted in federal, he filed a motion to dismiss the Puerto Rican Court’s ruling, saying it violated his 5th Amendment right to protection from Double Jeopardy. The prosecution argued that the United States and Puerto Rico derive their authority from different sources, and therefore can punish the same offenses without breaking his constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The case went through the trial court and then the court of appeals, which both agreed with Valle. It is now moving on to the Supreme Court.
On July 12, 2004, Carlos Alfonso Moreno appeared before the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. He brought before the court an appeal challenging the district court’s calculation of his sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guideline. The panel determined after reviewing his case that an oral argument would not be necessary. They were able to look at the details of his case and make their decision.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Vaughan, Jessica M. “Aliens Who Overstay Their Visas Are a Serious Security Threat.” Opposing Viewpoints: Immigration. Eds. David M. Haugen, Susan Musser and Kacy Lovelace. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 182-193. Print.
People v. Jones, 792 P. 2d 643 - Cal: Supreme Court 1990. Supreme Court of California. 28 June