Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Reno Vs. Flores

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 13, 1992

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

69 entries 11 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Bowers Vs. Hardwick US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1986
  2. Santosky Vs. Kramer US Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1982
  3. Mathews Vs. Diaz US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1976
  4. Fiallo Vs. Bell US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1977
  5. Carlson Vs. Landon US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1952
  6. Schall Vs. Martin US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1984
  7. Foucha Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 18, 1992
  8. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. Vs. Stranahan US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1909
  9. Village of Belle Terre Vs. Boraas US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1974
  10. Ankenbrandt Vs. Richards US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1992
  11. United States Vs. Witkovich US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1957
  12. U.S. 292 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Reno, Attorney General, Et Al. V. Flores
    Search
  13. must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the regulation would be valid. United States v. Salerno
    Search
  14. United 293 States v. Salerno
    Search
  15. cf. INS v. National
    Search
  16. See Flores v. Meese
    Search
  17. the United States, as that term is used in the immigration laws. See Leng May Ma v. Barber
    Search
  18. Conditions of Detention, Flores v. Meese
    Search
  19. granted summary judgment to respondents and invalidated the regulatory scheme in three important respects. Flores v. Meese
    Search
  20. the juvenile requests it. App. to Pet. for Cert. 146a. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. Flores v. Meese
    Search
  21. Flores v. Meese
    Search
  22. Court and all three judges on the Court of Appeals panel held in favor of the INS on this statutory claim, see Flores v. Meese
    Search
  23. statutory issue, they may legitimately defend their judgment on any ground properly raised below. See Wash ington v. Confederated
    Search
  24. to our considering the issue, and we do so in order to avoid deciding constitutional questions unnecessarily. See Jean v. Nelson
    Search
  25. U. S. 739 , 745 (1987). That is true as to both the constitutional challenges, see Schall v. Martin
    Search
  26. Wong Wing v. United
    Search
  27. is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See, e. g., Collins v. Harker
    Search
  28. see Bowers v. Hardwick
    Search
  29. courts a major new role in the management of state orphanages and other child-care institutions. Cf. Ankenbrandt v. Richards
    Search
  30. Salerno, supra, at 751 (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts
    Search
  31. be removed from the custody of its parents so long as they were providing for the child adequately. See Quilloin v. Walcott
    Search
  32. of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves. See, e. g., R. C. N. v. State
    Search
  33. U. S. 787 , 792 (1977) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan
    Search
  34. U. S., at 792 (quoting Mathews v. Diaz
    Search
  35. authority to detain aliens suspected of entering the country illegally pending their deportation hearings, see Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  36. of release pending deportation, committing that determination to the discretion of the Attorney General. See Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  37. of them take that course. See INS v. LopezMendoza
    Search
  38. b)(7), and by the federal courts, see, e. g., Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  39. waiving their right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. See Fare v. Michael
    Search
  40. see also United States v. Saucedo-Velasquez
    Search
  41. is no evidence of such delay, even in isolated instances. Cf. Matter of Chirinos, 16 1. & N. Dec. 276 (BIA 1977). v Respondents
    Search
  42. blood relatives, whose protective relationship with children our society has also traditionally respected. See Moore v. East
    Search
  43. cf. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
    Search
  44. in the field of domestic relations, including child custody. Ankenbrandt v. Richards
    Search
  45. see also Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  46. cf. Heckler v. Campbell
    Search
  47. Carl son v. Landon
    Search
  48. cf. United States v. Salerno
    Search
  49. The dissent would mandate fully individualized custody determinations for two reasons. First, because it reads Carlson v. Landon
    Search
  50. individualized hearings in order to avoid '''constitutional doubts.''' Post, at 334 (quoting United States v. Witkovich
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial