Sparks v. Sipple

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no Chevron analysis warranted, because section 236(c) is unambiguous, rendering the BIA’s view irrelevant
• holding that fifteen months in pre-removal custody is not unconstitutional under Demore
• finding that an appeal to the BIA would have been futile where the BIA had rejected the petitioner's arguments in prior cases
• collecting recent cases from the Southern District of New York that have examined the meaning of the “when ... released” clause of section 236(c)
• “[C]ontinued detention without a bond hearing is inconsistent with the due process clause of the Constitution.”
• “[Rojas’s reading] violates the cardinal rules of statutory interpretation: as it renders the “when ... released” clause superfluous by giving the clause no meaning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).