In re Noble

42 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,250 times 623 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 16,123 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.
511 U.S. 244 (1994) Cited 3,882 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,411 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
United States v. Turkette
452 U.S. 576 (1981) Cited 2,753 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a RICO enterprise must exist "separate and apart" from the pattern of racketeering activity
Addington v. Texas
441 U.S. 418 (1979) Cited 2,668 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the individual's interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence"
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital
488 U.S. 204 (1988) Cited 1,739 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
514 U.S. 211 (1995) Cited 907 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding legislated invalidation of final judgments to be categorically unconstitutional
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.
486 U.S. 281 (1988) Cited 808 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n
485 U.S. 439 (1988) Cited 810 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs
Section 1252 - Judicial review of orders of removal
8 U.S.C. § 1252 Cited 43,434 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"
Section 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1226 Cited 3,236 times 22 Legal Analyses
Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,159 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

In re Noble

42 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Holding that federal procedural due process claims are subject to a balancing test, not heightened scrutiny

Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

Holding that a RICO enterprise must exist "separate and apart" from the pattern of racketeering activity

Holding that "the individual's interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that courts will not defer to an agency's litigating position where it contradicts the agency's prior “regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”

Holding legislated invalidation of final judgments to be categorically unconstitutional

Holding a C.F.R. provision invalid because it conflicted with the unequivocal language of the statute

Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs

Holding court had no jurisdiction to review "any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b"

Ruling that no court may set aside an immigration judge's "discretionary judgment any action or decision . . . regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable