Heichel, P., Pet v. Smith Paving

How courts have described this case

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

• applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)’s “jurisdiction-stripping power to actions 6 challenging the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions to initiate proceedings, 7 adjudicate cases, and execute removal orders”
• rejecting government's argument that § 1252(g) deprived the courts of jurisdiction to hear \FTCA claims of a noncitizen who was wrongfully removed in violation of a court order.\
• retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s FTCA claims stemming from an unlawful removal despite § 1252(g)
• “A decision or action to violate a court order staying removal [] falls outside of the statute's jurisdiction- stripping reach.”
• “[W]e are guided here, as elsewhere, by the general rule to resolve any 15 ambiguities in a jurisdiction-stripping statute in favor of the narrower interpretation, and by the 16 strong presumption in favor of judicial review[.]”
• “[H]is claims arise not from the execution of the removal order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).