Pottinger v. Reno

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Commissioner of INS, rather than district director, was the appropriate custodian and thus the proper respondent to an alien habeas petition
• reviewing how “AEDPA section 440(d)’s silence as to temporal reach stands in stark contrast to the finely calibrated retroactivity language of other AEDPA sections”
• reviewing how “AEDPA section 440(d)’s silence as to temporal reach stands in stark contrast to the finely calibrated retroactivity language of other AEDPA sections”
• “Congress’s choice not to include ... any retroactivity language — in section 440(d) is reasonably construed as evidence of its plan to designate the section as applicable only to post-enactment conduct.”
• “petitioners in all these cases should be treated as if the laws governing their rights were those in existence at the time they committed the crimes for which the government now seeks to deport them”
• “A ‘legal change that would have an impact on private parties’ planning’ triggers the presumption against retroactivity, even if the change is only the attachment of additional civil liability to conduct that was already deemed ‘morally reprehensible or illegal’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).