Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC. v. Chicago Properties, LLC., No. 09-3506, concerned a challenge to the district court's dissmissal of plaintiff's suit against a defendant-commercial landlord and a mortgagor, claiming that the plaintiff-mortgage servicer is contractually entitled to the money the defendant received from its tenant for unpaid rent in the settlement of a suit. In reversing, the court held that the servicer can sue in its own name as the suit relates to a loan that's servicing, and even if the servicer is not a real part in interest in this case, there is still no need to dismiss under Rule 17(a)(3). The court also held that there has been no event that could trigger the tenant's liability under the SNDA as defendant has continued to make its monthly mortgage payments in full.
Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. US Forest Serv., No. 09-1672, concerned a plaintiff's suit against the U.S. Forest Service challenging the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the agency in connection with a timber sale in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin. In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the agency, the court held that at the time the EIS was being prepared, the project was too nebulous to be discussed in any meaningful way.
Malave v. Holder, No. 08-3578, concered a Nicaraguan citizen's petition for review of a decision ordering her removed from the U.S. after a finding that she had paid $1000 to her ex-husband to enter into a sham marriage for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. In granting the petition, the court held that, although section 202(f) of NACARA insulates from judicial review the decision whether to believe particular evidence of immigration fraud, before exercising this unreviewable power, the IJ must furnish the alien with compulsory process to seek the adverse witness's presence so that th etruth of the writings may be tested.
US v. Loniello, No. 09-1494, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of the section 2113(a) charges, which forbids attempting to rob a bank by force or intimidation, in a prosecution of three defendants pursuant to the federal bank-robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. section 2113. In reversing, the court held that under Blockburger, section 2113(a) creates two crimes, and here, there is no double jeopardy problem as the defendants have been acquitted of the crimes defined in section 2113(a), paragraph 1, and they have yet to be tried on the charge that they committed the separate crime defined in section 2113(a), paragraph 2.