Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Peterson v. Cal., No. 09-15633, involved an action claiming that California Proposition 115 (Prop. 115), the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, violated plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court of appeals affirmed judgment on the pleadings for defendant, holding that 1) Prop. 115 did not deprive plaintiff of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him at a preliminary hearing; and 2) the preliminary hearing was not required to include the right of confrontation in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.
As the court wrote: "Neil Peterson appeals the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to the County of Nevada in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Peterson alleged that California Proposition 115 ("Prop. 115"), the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, violates his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm."