Citation network
Jean Vs. Nelson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1985
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 846 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Jean v. NelsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 846 (1985) Jean v. NelsonSearch
-
Louis v. NelsonSearch
-
a preponderance of the evidence discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in the denial of parole. Louis v. NelsonSearch
-
Jean II, supra, at 977, citing Kleindienst v. MandelSearch
-
Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
U. S. 352 , 461 U. S. 361 , n. 10 (1983), citing Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
Three Affiliated Tribes of Berthold Reservation v. WoldSearch
-
to avoid a constitutional question. United States v. LockeSearch
-
U. S. 84 , 471 U. S. 96 (1985). As the Court stressed in Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlinSearch
-
United States v. GerlachSearch
-
Mandate, Louis v. NelsonSearch
-
think that interpretation arrives with some authority in this Court. The dissent relies upon such cases as Young v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 315 U. S. 257 , 315 U. S. 259 (1942), and Investment Company Institute v. CampSearch
-
the independent question whether such disparate treatment would also violate the Constitution, and invokes Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
that between 1954 and 1981 most undocumented aliens detained at the border were paroled into the United States. Louis v. NelsonSearch
-
at 472 U. S. 849 . In June 1982, the District Court below enjoined enforcement of this new policy. Louis v. NelsonSearch
-
For example, in Hintopoulos v. ShaughnessySearch
-
the Executive. That interpretation of the statutes is, of course, entitled to deference. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
A). See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. VolpeSearch
-
courts, and will be set aside only if it is inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Bowles v. SeminoleSearch
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. MilhollinSearch
-
United States v. LarionoffSearch
-
do not apply, however, to representations of appellate counsel. As we stated in Investment Company Institute v. CampSearch
-
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. StateSearch
-
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
statute and regulations, such as are at issue here, cannot be left merely to the stipulation of parties. See Young v. UnitedSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
The en banc Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' constitutional claim, holding that Shaughnessy v. UnitedSearch
-
the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See also United States ex rel. Knauff v. ShaughnessySearch
-
s refusal to inform him of the reasons for his continued detention violated due process. United States ex rel. Mezei v. ShaughnessySearch
-
The Court, however, refused to afford such protections to the latter group. Citing United States ex rel. Knauff v. ShaughnessySearch
-
Knauff v. ShaughnessySearch
-
at the border can claim no rights under the Constitution. Further support for that view comes from Kwong Hai Chew v. ColdingSearch
-
that aliens temporarily paroled into the United States have no more rights than those in detention. See Kaplan v. TodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial