Heard v. Trump

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that immigration consequences of a conviction, including the possibility of removal, do not render an individual “in custody” for § 2254 purposes and collecting authority for same
• Maleng has made “unmistakably clear” that a § 2254 petitioner must, at the time his petition is filed, be “in custody” pursuant to the contested state conviction or sentence
• Maleng has made “unmistakably clear” that a § 2254 petitioner must, at the time his petition is filed, be “in custody” pursuant to the contested state conviction or sentence
• Maleng has made “unmistakably clear” that a § 2254 petitioner must, at the time his petition is filed, be “in custody” pursuant to the contested state conviction or sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).