Davis v. Police Jury of Concordia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that § 1373(a) does not encompass release-date information
• holding 11 § 236.6 allows disclosure to other state entities and thus did not preempt state law
• finding that California limitation on information sharing with the federal government did not violate doctrine of intergovernmental immunity because “the purported ‘burden’ is California’s decision not to help the Federal government implement its immigration enforcement regime”
• \[T]he Supreme Court's holding in Murphy undercuts portions of the Second Circuit's reasoning [in City of New York ] and calls its conclusion into question.\
• “[T]he plain meaning of Section 1373 limits its reach to information strictly pertaining to immigration status (i.e. what one’s immigration status is) and does not include information like release dates and addresses.”
• “[T]he plain meaning of Section 1373 limits its reach to information strictly pertaining to immigration status (i.e. what one’s immigration status is) and does not include information like release dates and addresses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).