
Here’s the domestic legal news we covered this week:
According to a written opinion [text, PDF] from the group in January, al Baluchi was arrested in April 2003 in Karachi, Pakistan, for his alleged association with Al-Qaida [Britannica backgrounder], and then transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006.
At the hearing, Judge Amy Berman Jackson set the trial date [WP report] for September 17, 2018.
HB1467 [materials] would criminalize selling, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing or carrying a bump stock or trigger crank that would allow non-automatic rifles to be used as automatics once attached.
In the statement of interest, the DOJ will assert that the federal government should be reimbursed for the significant costs caused by the opioid crisis through enacting treatment programs and public safety measures.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions [official profile], estimating the crisis has costed billions of dollars, said that “[the] opioid abuse is driving the deadliest drug crisis in American history.
HB 1865, introduced last April, would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 [text], which limits online service providers’ liability regarding presentation of online material created by other entities.
Plaintiffs, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Animal Legal Defense Fund [advocacy websites], the state of California and the California Coastal Commission [official websites] had sought summary judgement and injunctive relief over waiver determinations issued by the Department of Homeland Security that regarded San Diego and El Centro as “high areas of illegal entry,” both which of needed replaced border fences, according to the Secretary of DHS.
Judge Randolph Moss dismissed the lawsuit finding that the plaintiffs, Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the union Communications Workers of America [advocacy websites], failed to establish standing.
This ruling follows a lawsuit that was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of a nationwide class of young immigrants who alleged that “their permission to live in the United States and employment authorization [have been] arbitrarily stripped away …
The question for the court in Riverkeeper v.
The complaint was filed on the behalf of a mother and her seven-year-old daughter from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who were separated after arriving in the US to seek asylum last November.