Jacobo Jajati v. United States Customs and Border Protection

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this Court, if possible, must not interpret a statute in a way that would render a subsection within the statute superfluous
• noting “the settled rule” that “absent an express legislative statement to the contrary, an act . . . does not apply to a suit pending at the time the act becomes effective”
• “While we generally will not consider arguments not presented below, this is a rule of prudence, not of jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)
• “While we generally will not consider arguments not presented below, this is a rule of prudence, not of jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)
• “[C]hanges in modes of procedure do not invalidate completed procedural actions valid under the law in effect at the time they were taken.”
• consideration of legislative fact sheets appropriate to determine legislative intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).