{"id":231099,"date":"2020-06-19T10:55:32","date_gmt":"2020-06-19T05:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=231099"},"modified":"2020-06-19T11:32:50","modified_gmt":"2020-06-19T06:02:50","slug":"scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of The United States: <\/b>In a landmark decision affecting the immigrants in the United States of America, the 9 Judge Bench of the Court<\/span><\/strong> headed by John G. Roberts, CJ., with a ratio of 5:4 held that, the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s decision to rescind the immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals<\/strong><\/span> (hereinafter DACA) can be judicially reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act by the Supreme Court. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Court further held that the DHS\u2019 decision to rescind DACA is arbitrary and capricious.<\/strong> The majority included <\/span>John Roberts, CJ., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, JJ.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2012, the DHS introduced a memorandum announcing the DACA, an immigration relief program which allowed certain unauthorized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed this relief. However, during the early presidential years of Donald Trump (current President of the USA); the DACA was rescinded citing legal flaws. In 2017 the DHS clarified that it would no longer accept new applications, but existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recipients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal. The rescission was challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness; violation of Administrative Procedure Act and infringement of the guarantee of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause. The Government contended that DACA Memorandum is a general non-enforcement policy; hence the rescission of the same will not be reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Scrutinizing various legal aspects surrounding the issue, the majority observed that the DACA did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceedings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration relief. Additionally, by virtue of DACA, 700,000 recipients may request work authorization and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Access to such benefits is an interest for which courts often are called to protect; therefore the rescission is subject to review under the APA. <\/span><\/p>\n

It was further observed that when the Attorney General determined that the DACA is illegal, it was the DHS\u2019 responsibility to best address the determination which involved important policy choices and providing sufficient explanation for the decision to rescind DACA. However, the Attorney General\u2019s conclusion regarding the illegality of DACA was seen as sufficient reason to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. Thus, absence of a \u2018reasoned analysis\u2019 itself renders the rescission as arbitrary. Moreover, the Government failed to adhere to the principle of \u2018legitimate reliance\u2019 on the DACA Memorandum. It was observed that, \u201cDHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. It was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, JJ., delivered the dissenting opinion. They observed that the majority opinion is <\/span>an <\/span>effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct Government decision.\u00a0<\/span>[Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 US (2020),<\/i> decided on 18-06-2020]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of The United States: In a landmark decision affecting the immigrants in the United States of America, the 9 Judge <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[42022,31028,42024,3042,42025,30048,42023],"class_list":["post-231099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals","tag-immigrants","tag-immigration-relief","tag-Judicial_Review","tag-medicare","tag-social-security","tag-unauthorised-aliens"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of The United States: In a landmark decision affecting the immigrants in the United States of America, the 9 Judge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":565,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals\",\"Immigrants\",\"Immigration Relief\",\"Judicial Review\",\"Medicare\",\"social security\",\"Unauthorised Aliens\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/19\\\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed","og_description":"Supreme Court of The United States: In a landmark decision affecting the immigrants in the United States of America, the 9 Judge","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed","datePublished":"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/"},"wordCount":565,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","keywords":["Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals","Immigrants","Immigration Relief","Judicial Review","Medicare","social security","Unauthorised Aliens"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/","name":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2020-06-19T05:25:32+00:00","dateModified":"2020-06-19T06:02:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/19\/scotus-us-governments-decision-to-rescind-daca-is-capricious-arbitrary-and-therefore-can-be-judicially-reviewed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS | US Government\u2019s decision to rescind DACA is capricious & arbitrary and therefore can be judicially reviewed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215714,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/14\/canada-sc-detained-immigrants-application-for-habeas-corpus-may-be-allowed-where-the-remedy-under-immigration-act-is-less-advantageous-to-the-detainee\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":0},"title":"Canada SC | Detained immigrant\u2019s application for habeas corpus may be allowed where remedy under Immigration Act is less advantageous to detainee","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 14, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cHabeas corpus is a fundamental and historic remedy which allows individuals to seek a determination as to the legality of their detention\u2026\u2026. Although our legal system continues to evolve, habeas corpus \u201cremains as fundamental to our modern conception of liberty as it was in the days of King John\u201d and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Canada SC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226148,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/25\/all-hc-medical-board-report-in-a-recruitment-process-not-to-be-interfered-with-unless-arbitrary-capricious-or-not-in-accord-with-relevant-recruitment-rules\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":1},"title":"All HC | Medical Board report in a recruitment process not to be interfered with, unless arbitrary, capricious or not in accord with relevant recruitment rules","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 25, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder and Dr Y. K. Srivastava, JJ. dismissed the present appeal since this was not a case where decision of the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious or in violation of recruitment rules hence the court found no infirmity in the impugned order. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":49681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/30\/racial-bias-in-jury-selection-for-death-penalty-case-was-committed-by-the-state-prosecutors\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":2},"title":"Racial Bias in Jury selection for death penalty case was committed by the State prosecutors","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 30, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States:\u00a0Ruling that prosecutors in Georgia violated the Constitution by striking every black prospective juror in a death penalty case against a black defendant, the Court by a majority of 7 to 1 reversed the order of the Georgia Supreme Court and held that the prosecutors of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6452,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/11\/12\/courts-cannot-interfere-with-policy-decision-by-adding-something-to-the-policy-by-way-of-mandamus\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":3},"title":"Courts cannot interfere with policy decision by adding something to the policy by way of mandamus","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 12, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Holding the decision of the Madras High Court where the authorities were directed to take measures to conduct caste-wise census in the country, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, R.F. Nariman and U.U. Lalit held that the said direction was irrefragably against the power conferred on the court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":224235,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/15\/canada-sc-person-born-in-canada-to-a-couple-who-were-undercover-russian-spies-held-to-be-a-canadian-citizen\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":4},"title":"Canada SC | Person born in Canada to a couple who were undercover Russian spies held to be a Canadian citizen\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 15, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Canada: A Full Bench of Wagner, CJ. and Moldaver, Grason, Cote, Brown, Rowe and Martin, JJ. is pertaining to the validity of Registrar\u2019s decision in a case of withdrawal of citizenship. The petition has been filed by Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration against the orders of Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Canada SC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233588,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/08\/sushant-singh-rajput-death-case-hearing-deferred-till-21st-august-2020-on-plea-seeking-cbi-investigation\/","url_meta":{"origin":231099,"position":5},"title":"Sushant Singh Rajput death | Bom HC defers hearing till 21st August, 2020 on plea seeking CBI investigation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., deferred the hearing for PIL's filed in view of the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput, a film actor. In the present two Public Interest Litigations, it has been sought that CBI should be entrusted with the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231099\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}