Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Debeatham v. Holder, No. 09-0205, concerned a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The court of appeals denied the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 1988), in asserting one of counsel's alleged errors and failed to show prejudice arising from the remaining alleged errors.
US v. Key, No. 08-3218, involved defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2). The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on the ground that, even the court were to reverse the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence, the possibility that the district court would, on remand, terminate defendant's supervised release under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(e)(1) was too remote and speculative to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Wasser v. N.Y. State Offc. of Vocational and Educ. Servs., No. 08-4724, concerned a Rehabilitation Act action based on failure to accommodate plaintiff's muscular dystrophy. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that, when a plaintiff commences a civil action under 29 U.S.C. section 722(c)(5)(J), seeking review of a final decision of either a state hearing officer or a state reviewing official, district courts should apply a modified de novo standard of review, engaging in an independent review of the administrative record while according substantial deference to the policy views of the New York State Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities and the findings of state administrative proceedings.
Baker & Taylor, Inc. v. Alphacraze.com Corp., No. 09-0581, involved an action alleging breach of contract, breach of guaranty, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraudulent conveyance arising from contracts and guaranties between plaintiffs and various of defendants. The court of appeals vacated the dismissal of the action on the grounds that 1) neither of the signatories to the arbitration agreement at issue here sought arbitration; and 2) the nonsignatory defendants who did move to dismiss in favor of arbitration, moreover, disclaimed any interest in participating in the arbitration and stated that they could not be compelled to arbitrate plaintiffs' claims.