Goldsmith, Haber & Co. v. Friedlander & Gerson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not bar district courts from \review[ing] habeas challenges to unlawful immigration detention\
• noting that deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not relevant to whether constitutional due process protections require the government to bear the burden of proof during an immigration bond hearing
• observing that deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not relevant to whether the due- process protections in the United States Constitution require the government to bear the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings
• explaining that the “[p]etitioner must show he was prejudiced by the constitutional error” and ordering a new bond hearing because the immigration judge “could well have found that [the petitioner] was not dangerous based on a single misdemeanor conviction”
• allowing the habeas petition and ordering that 9 petitioner not be re-detained unless an IJ holds a new custody hearing with the burden 10 placed on the government
• assigning burden of proof to government in 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a) bond hearings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).