U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Jay F. Hein, Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, et al. v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., et al.: certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit Argued 28 February 2007--Decided 25 June 2007 No. 06-157

In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court sustained the jurisdiction of a U.S. court to try a Mexican national, charged with various counts of conspiracy, kidnaping and the murder of a U.S. drug enforcement agent in Mexico, even though his presence in the United States was the result of abduction rather than extradition pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. The Court did not hold, as widely reported in the media, that the Treaty permits abduction, that abduction is legal, or that the United States had a right to kidnap criminal suspects abroad. On the contrary, the Court acknowledged that the abduction may have been a violation of international law. It stated, “Respondent and his amici may be correct that respondent’s abduction was ’shocking’ and that it may be in violation of general international law principles.”

Download Full-text

The Argument about Ethics, Fairness, or Right and Wrong

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication ◽

10.2190/694b-xjem-rf64-kr97 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. 367-375 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Thomas M. Sawyer

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

The United States ◽

Court Decision ◽

Appellate Court ◽

Student Paper ◽

The Supreme Court

Four of the five issues normally involved in an argument of policy can be persuasively argued on the basis of facts. However, the fourth issue, that of fairness, might better be argued by following the organizational plan of an appellate court decision. The Supreme Court decision in Teminello vs. the United States is offered as an example. The practicality of this plan is illustrated with a student paper.

Download Full-text

Sabbatino Resurrected: The Act of State Doctrine in the Revised Restatement of U.S. Foreign Relations Law

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202664 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 79 (1) ◽

pp. 68-91 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Malvina Halberstam

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

International Law ◽

Foreign Relations ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

The United States ◽

Court Decision ◽

Foreign State ◽

The Supreme Court

Among the more controversial provisions of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), are the sections dealing with the act of state doctrine in Tentative Draft No. 4. Section 428 provides: “Subject to §429, courts in the United States will refrain from examining the validity of an act of a foreign state taken in its sovereign capacity within the state’s own territory.” This provision, of course, is based on the Supreme Court decision in Sabbatino. The Court there stated, “the Judicial Branch will not examine the validity of a taking of property within its own territory by a foreign sovereign government” even if it is alleged that the taking is contrary to international law.

Download Full-text

Third Party Consent Searches Following the Search and Surveillance Act

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v43i3.5030 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 43 (3) ◽

pp. 447

Author(s):

Sam McMullan

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New Zealand ◽

Property Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Living Arrangements ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

The United States ◽

Third Party ◽

Court Decision ◽

The Supreme Court

Many New Zealanders live in shared living arrangements. The result of this is that reasonable expectations of privacy are becoming more limited. State officials may conduct a lawful search where a person consents to such a search if that person has the authority to consent. Where people live in shared living arrangements, several people may have authority to consent to a search of the same property. This article explores the extent of a third party's power to consent to property searches where more than one person has authority to consent to a search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It argues that the question of reasonable expectations of privacy should not be assessed by reference to property rights. It also considers the concept of "apparent" authority which has arisen in New Zealand from the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Bradley as well as the concept of a present and objecting occupant which has arisen in the United States in the Supreme Court decision of Georgia v Randolph.

Download Full-text