Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

KESTUTIS ZADVYDAS v. CHRISTINE G. DAVIS AND IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE (2001)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
KESTUTIS ZADVYDAS v. CHRISTINE G. DAVIS AND IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Term: 2000
Important Dates
Argued: February 21, 2001
Decided: June 28, 2001
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgSandra Day O'ConnorDavid SouterJohn Paul Stevens
Dissenting
Anthony KennedyWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaClarence Thomas

KESTUTIS ZADVYDAS v. CHRISTINE G. DAVIS AND IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 28, 2001. The case was argued before the court on February 21, 2001.

In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 2000s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Rehnquist Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Civil Rights - Deportation (cf. immigration and naturalization)
  • Petitioner: Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 533 U.S. 678
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: William Rehnquist
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Stephen Breyer

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes