Link to today’s order list, which contains only the 4 grants, remaining orders will be released on Monday.
Issue prefix - Because of the United States’ inviolable obligation not to deport individuals to countries in which they are likely to be subject to torture, individuals who are statutorily ineligible for asylum may request withholding (or deferral) of removal. Such relief is, as courts repeatedly note, a fundamental bulwark to ensure that the government’s decision to deport an individual does not result in torture or death.
The courts of appeals have deeply and intractably divided as to whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a (2)(C) divests them of jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying the administrative agency’s decision to deny a request for withholding (or deferral) of removal relief. The United States has expressly acknowledged the conflict among the circuits, and it has previously acquiesced to certiorari on this question. This case, unlike those before it, cleanly presents the question for review.
Issue : Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
I added the issue prefix to give context to this case, don’t know enough about it yet to make an informed comment.
Issue : Whether prior Heck v. Humphrey dismissals without prejudice are strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
I won’t comment on the case itself, again for lack of sufficient knowledge. But I put a link to the Petition itself. This is very rare case of a pro se prisoner petition being granted. Prepared either by the inmate himself or a jailhouse attorney. But then Gideon v Wainwright started the exact same way.
Issue : Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?
I do believe the statute is flawed, but is fixable. The Supreme Court should rule in a limited manner for the Petitioner and require Congress to fix the flaws in the appointment/tenure process of the Director. This can be done by making the Director serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. I would not support going farther than that.
Issue : Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.
This is another alien removal case and the issue is whether habeas corpus has illegally been suspended by statute. Again, going to refrain from commenting further.
