Breaking: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to ease the path to deport asylum seekers, saying noncitizens apprehended near the border can be removed without court review
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court Thursday rejected claims that an expedited removal process for unauthorized immigrants apprehended near the border violates the Constitution.
Malaysia Latest News, Malaysia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court Accepts Bill Cosby's Appeal of ConvictionThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear Bill Cosby’s appeal for his 2018 conviction on Tuesday, saying that it would review the judge’s decision to allow prosecutors to call five other accusers as witnesses, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
Read more »
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear part of Bill Cosby appealThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear two points in Bill Cosby’s appeal to overturn his 2018 sexual assault conviction.
Read more »
In surprise move, Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear Bill Cosby's appealPennsylvania’s highest court will review the trial decision to let five other accusers testify at entertainer Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial.
Read more »
Supreme Court allows quick removal of asylum-seekersThe case represented a crucial test of the Trump administration's effort to speed removal of thousands of migrants without federal court hearings.
Read more »
Supreme Court delivers win for Trump in case over speedy deportationThe Supreme Court sided 7-2 with President Donald Trump on Thursday in a case over a federal law that substantially limits the role that courts can play in reviewing deportation decisions in certain cases under a streamlined process known as 'expedited removal.'
Read more »
Supreme Court rules asylum seeker cannot challenge removalIn a win for the Department of Homeland Security, the Supreme Court said Thursday that a Sri Lankan farmer who lost his bid for asylum in the United States after immigration officials ordered his removal could not challenge that decision in federal court.
Read more »