Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Detroit_Free_Press_v._Ashcroft an entity of type: Abstraction100002137
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker, to apply a blanket ruling of the Creppy Directive in order to keep immigration hearings closed to the press and the public. The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
rdf:langString
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
xsd:integer
29439717
xsd:integer
1043415471
rdf:langString
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437
rdf:langString
DETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
rdf:langString
Damon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. Carr
rdf:langString
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker, to apply a blanket ruling of the Creppy Directive in order to keep immigration hearings closed to the press and the public. The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.
xsd:date
2002-08-26
rdf:langString
Affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10683