40 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,043 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (2004) Cited 4,524 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdiction under § 2241(b) lies only in the district of confinement
Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (2001) Cited 4,281 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Government's detention authority under Section 1231 is authorized for "a period reasonably necessary to secure removal"
Demore v. Kim
538 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 1,684 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause
National Cable Telecom. Assn. v. Brand X Internet S
545 U.S. 967 (2005) Cited 1,180 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agency is free within "the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course" only if it "adequately justifies the change"
Nat'l Assoc. Home v. Defenders of Wildlife
551 U.S. 644 (2007) Cited 874 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a stray erroneous statement in the Federal Register "which could have had no effect on the underlying agency action being challenged" is not "the type of error that requires a remand"
Moskal v. United States
498 U.S. 103 (1990) Cited 562 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule of lenity is not triggered because it is "possible to articulate" a narrower construction of a statute
Diop v. Ice/Homeland Sec.
656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 630 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that noncitizen's release from pre-removal-order custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) did not moot his habeas petition where, unlike here, there was a non-speculative possibility that the petitioner could be subject to the complained-of detention again
Burns v. Honigman, Miller, Schwartz Cohn
451 Mich. 909 (Mich. 1996) Cited 838 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that child pornography "is a form of sexual abuse which can result in physical or psychological harm, or both, to the children involved."
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust
510 U.S. 86 (1993) Cited 214 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that variable annuities are not exempt from ERISA
Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 Cited 10,811 times 11 Legal Analyses
Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities
Section 1227 - Deportable aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1227 Cited 7,926 times 40 Legal Analyses
Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
Section 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
8 U.S.C. § 1231 Cited 7,836 times 13 Legal Analyses
Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver
Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 3,176 times 22 Legal Analyses
Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"
Section 1228 - Expedited removal of aliens convicted of committing aggravated felonies
8 U.S.C. § 1228 Cited 616 times 3 Legal Analyses
Adopting conclusive presumption of deportability of convicted aliens and denying judicial review of removal orders
Section 1003.19 - Custody/bond
8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 Cited 426 times 2 Legal Analyses
Granting immigration judges jurisdiction to review custody and bond determinations
Section 1236.1 - Apprehension, custody, and detention
8 C.F.R. § 1236.1 Cited 178 times 1 Legal Analyses
Authorizing parole where the alien has demonstrated that "such release would not pose a danger to property or persons" and he or she "is likely to appear for any future proceeding"

Blake v. Mechkowski et al

40 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Holding that jurisdiction under § 2241(b) lies only in the district of confinement

Holding that the Government's detention authority under Section 1231 is authorized for "a period reasonably necessary to secure removal"

Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause

Holding that an agency is free within "the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course" only if it "adequately justifies the change"

Holding that a stray erroneous statement in the Federal Register "which could have had no effect on the underlying agency action being challenged" is not "the type of error that requires a remand"

Holding that the rule of lenity is not triggered because it is "possible to articulate" a narrower construction of a statute

Holding that noncitizen's release from pre-removal-order custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) did not moot his habeas petition where, unlike here, there was a non-speculative possibility that the petitioner could be subject to the complained-of detention again

Finding that child pornography "is a form of sexual abuse which can result in physical or psychological harm, or both, to the children involved."

Holding that variable annuities are not exempt from ERISA

Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

Concluding that once petitioner's removal order was reinstated, he was no longer eligible for "relief" in the form of adjustment of status-even if he could obtain a Form I-212 waiver

Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"

Adopting conclusive presumption of deportability of convicted aliens and denying judicial review of removal orders

Granting immigration judges jurisdiction to review custody and bond determinations

Authorizing parole where the alien has demonstrated that "such release would not pose a danger to property or persons" and he or she "is likely to appear for any future proceeding"