Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statutory claims \affecting the substan- tial rights of aliens of the sort the courts have secularly enforced\ are subject to habeas review
• holding that the amended statute has an impermissibly retroactive effect on pre-April 24, 1996, cases that already had been “initiated before the date of [the AEDPA’s] enactment”
• noting that a writ of habeas corpus is ordinarily served on \the individual with day-to-day control over\ the prisoner
• noting that question of retroactive application to criminal convictions occurring prior to April 24, 1996 was broader than question of whether amendments applied to cases pending on that date
• relying on earlier decision in Jean-Baptiste v. Reno, 144 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 1998), and concluding that without express reference to S 2241 it would not find bar on federal courts' habeas jurisdiction
• declining to decide, but discussing whether Attorney General can be custodian

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).