In re Request for Assistance from Ministry of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-828
Author(s):  
Bradford L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trinidad And Tobago ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Judicial Assistance ◽  
The U.S

Appellant, Joseph Azar, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to quash a subpoena obtained by the U.S. Department of Justice at the request of the Minister of Legal Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago. The United States had sought the subpoena to obtain Azar’s Florida bank records as part of a criminal investigation in Trinidad and Tobago. On review, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (per Fay, J.) affirmed the district court’s decision and held that 28 U.S.C. §1782 authorized the judicial assistance sought by the Minister of Legal Affairs even though there was no pending proceeding in Trinidad and Tobago.

United States v. Stuart

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-923
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Price
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
District Court ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Justice Department ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

In response to a request by Canadian tax authorities under the United States-Canada Double Taxation Convention (Convention), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain U.S. bank records concerning certain accounts of respondents, Canadian citizens whose Canadian tax liability was under investigation. Respondents sought to quash the summonses, arguing that because under 26 U.S.C. §7609(b) the IRS is prohibited by U.S. law from using its summons authority to obtain information about a U.S. taxpayer once a case is referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, and because the tax investigation of respondents was part of a Canadian criminal investigation, the IRS should be precluded from using its summons authority to honor the Canadian request under the Convention. Unsuccessful in the district court, respondents prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that under the “good faith” standard applicable to enforcement of domestic summonses, the IRS may issue a summons pursuant to a Convention request only if it first determines and makes an affirmative statement to the effect that the Canadian investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court (per Brennan, J.) reversed, and held: (1) that if the summons is issued in good faith, it is enforceable regardless of whether the Canadian request is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law; and (2) neither United States law nor anything in the text or the ratification history of the Convention supports the imposition of additional requirements. Justice Kennedy (joined by O’Connor, J.), concurring in part and in the judgment, filed a brief opinion to state his view that it is unnecessary to decide whether Senate preratification materials are authoritative sources for treaty interpretation. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, wrote separately to oppose the use of such materials in treaty construction.

Doe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-573
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Immigration And Naturalization Service ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Chinese Citizen ◽  
The U.S

The plaintiff, a Chinese citizen who entered the United States under a nonimmigrant student visa, appealed from a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to deny his request for asylum. Plaintiff claimed that he had a “well-founded fear of persecution,” the prerequisite to attaining “refugee” status under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the Act) and implementing regulations promulgated by the INS. He also claimed that the immigration judge had erred by refusing to obtain a second advisory opinion from the Department of State’s Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (BHRHA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (per Nelson, J.) held that (1) the immigration judge had abused his discretion by not requesting a second advisory opinion from the BHRHA; and (2) the judge had incorrectly applied an objective standard in evaluating plaintiffs asylum request, when credible evidence demonstrated that plaintiff had a subjectively valid fear of persecution if deported to China. The court remanded the case to the immigration judge with instructions to obtain a second opinion from the BHRHA and to consider plaintiffs asylum request on the assumption that he qualified as a “refugee.”

Physician-Assisted Suicide and Criminal Prosecution: Are Physicians at Risk?

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Popular Initiative ◽  
The U.S

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains a hotly debated issue throughout the United States, and continues to capture the attention of government officials at both the state and federal levels. While the practice is currently legal in Oregon, some federal lawmakers and officials from the U.S. Department of Justice have attempted to outlaw that state's practice through legislation (e.g., the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999), or through a strained interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. And while several citizen groups throughout the United States have attempted but failed to legalize PAS through popular initiative, several state lawmakers have succeeded in specifically outlawing the practice. Yet even though physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains unlawful in every state except Oregon, there is ample evidence that American physicians throughout the United States have participated in PAS by providing their terminally ill patients with lethal prescriptions.

State Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-47
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Harris ◽  
Scott Walfield ◽  
Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky ◽  
Michelle A. Cubellis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Title I ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Multidimensional Analysis ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Sex Offender Registration ◽  
The U.S

The 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, established federal standards related to the content and operation of sex offender registration and notification systems across the United States. As of early 2017, over a decade following passage, 18 of 50 states had been designated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as having substantially implemented SORNA—figures that might be initially interpreted as indicators of a failed policy. Yet a closer analysis suggests that SORNA implementation is complex and multifaceted and that viewing the policy’s “success” through such a binary prism may be inherently limited. In this context, the current study offers a multidimensional analysis of state-level SORNA implementation based on data abstracted from DOJ records. Findings indicate that many aspects of SORNA have been universally or widely implemented, that most states have adopted policies that are consistent with a majority of SORNA standards, and that barriers to SORNA implementation are concentrated among a limited subset of issues, notably those related to retroactive application, registration of juveniles, and means of classifying registrants. Implications for state and federal policy governing sex offender registration are discussed.

Doherty v. U.S. Department of Justice

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-348
Author(s):  
John K. Speer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Irish Republican Army ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Army Officer ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Attorneys General

This case is the latest in a series of actions brought in the United States since 1984 that have resulted in court and administrative decisions on the claim of asylum by, and attempt at extradition of, the plaintiff, Joseph Patrick Doherty, a native of Northern Ireland and subject of the United Kingdom and its Colonies. He was admittedly a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and was convicted in absentia, in Northern Ireland, of murder of a British Army officer there in 1980. In the instant case, the plaintiff sought review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of two administrative decisions by successive Attorneys General of the United States (one by Edwin Meese in June 1988, and the other by Richard Thornburgh in July 1989).

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena: California's Temporary Suspension of the Statute of Limitations in Holocaust Art Cases Violates the Foreign Affairs Doctrine

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-125
Author(s):  
Andrew Adler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Temporary Suspension ◽  
The U.S

AbstractIn 2002, the California state legislature enacted a law temporarily suspending the statute of limitations in certain Holocaust art cases. In doing so, it removed a major procedural obstacle facing plaintiffs and effectively revived claims once considered time-barred. Seven years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena that this California law was unconstitutional under the foreign affairs doctrine, because it impermissibly intruded on the federal government's exclusive power to make and resolve war. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit became the first court in the United States to restrict the authority of the states to inject themselves into the realm of Holocaust art litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document