Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Moor v. Palmer, No. 07-16045, concerned habeas proceedings challenging the denial of petitioner's parole, following his conviction for using a minor in the production of pornography. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that 1) the revocation of petitioner's parole in 2002 was not the type of criminal punishment that would trigger the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) to the extent petitioner asserted that the parole board's violation or misapplication of Nevada law violated his federal due process rights, petitioner had no liberty interest in parole; and 3) it is not an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent to conclude that subjecting petitioner to a review panel certification process would not create a substantial risk that he would serve more prison time than if he had been evaluated for parole under standards applicable at the time of his conviction, as found in Nev. Rev. Stat. section 213.1099.
Buckingham v. Sec'y, U.S. Dept. of Agric., No. 09-15893, involved an action seeking judicial review, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), of the Forest Service's decision to cancel plaintiff's permit to graze cattle in the Santa Rosa Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the grounds that 1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to properly raise an issue before the Forest Service; 2) plaintiff failed to persuasively explain why he was unable to resolve those factual issues through the ample process he was given; and 3) based on the violations occurring in the 2005 grazing season alone, the Forest Service had a reasonable basis for canceling petitioner's 2005 permit.
In US v. Franklin, No. 09-30041, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's firearm possession conviction, holding that 1) there was probable cause to believe that defendant was residing in the motel room searched by police; and 2) the terms of defendant's plea agreement were clear and unambiguous and did not contain a promise that federal charges would not be brought.