McGinty v. Richmond

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ongoing problems were considered in prior administrations' termination of TPS, but not here, and therefore plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a new policy
• holding § 1254a(b)(5)(A) does not strip court of jurisdiction to consider general collateral practices or colorable constitutional claims
• noting that the TPS terminations for Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan were announced over a year in advance of their effective dates
• concluding the Government could not show \clear and convincing evidence of Congressional intent to strip jurisdiction of the courts to review generally applicable policies and practices which transcend individual TPS determination for a particular country\
• rejecting rational-basis review of equal protection challenge to TPS terminations of Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador
• “Section 1254a does not reflect a clear Congressional intent to preclude this Court from reviewing Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the Secretary’s determinations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).