Jurisdiction Has Its Day in (Supreme) Court
First up is Kucana v. Holder, a case involving questions over the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The Act removed courts' jurisdiction to review a "decision or action of the Attorney General . . . the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of" the Attorney General.
The issue in the case is whether this provision applies to rulings on motions to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The petitioner argues it does not since motions to reopen are not specifically enumerated in the Act as falling within the discretion of the Attorney General.
After Kucana, the Court will hear Hertz Corp. v. Friend, a case concerning the standard for determining a corporation's principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court will examine whether a court may ignore the location of a corporation's national headquarters when determining whether the parties in a lawsuit are diverse.
Hertz argues that its corporate headquarters in New Jersey is its principal place of business, while the respondents want the Court to adopt a more detailed, multi-factor analysis that they claim indicates California as the principal place of business.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Or contact an attorney near you: