Public opinion is divided, showing appreciation for the Supreme Court's interventions alongside concerns about potential overreach of both judicial and executive powers. While many support accountability and timely action by the legislature, others fear it undermines the governor's authority and impacts executive governance. The discourse highlights the necessity of a balanced power structure to protect democracy and individual rights.

Supreme Court

Governors

Central Government

State Legislatures

rubikscanopener

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes regarding Watergate at first after the SC ordered him to.

kootles10

Jackson generally had baffling views of the Supreme Court. He vetoed the National Bank on constitutional grounds, even though the Court had already ruled on its constitutionality (McCulloch v. Maryland). While he obviously had the power to veto it, his reasoning is, um, interesting: 

"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled."

He goes on to say that he thinks each branch of government should have the power to decide for itself questions of constitutionality (Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803).

Worcester v. Georgia is probably the most famous case people cite for Jackson's disregard of the courts, but it's a bit more complicated that it's often made out to be. However, I still think Jackson's attitude shows obvious disregard for court rulings.

So the state of Georgia had long desired removal of the tribes within their borders, including the Cherokee, and that led to a series of court cases as the state repeatedly encroached on tribal land/sovereignty. Prior to Worcester, another example is the case of a Cherokee man named Corn Tassel that Georgia sentenced to death for the murder of another Cherokee. The state did not have jurisdiction over crimes between tribal members, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued an order staying his execution. Georgia's governor told the judge to execute him anyway. 

In Worcester, the Court ruled that (among other things) the Cherokee Nation was a "distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force." Georgia had no right to infringe on the tribe's sovereignty. So the court ruling was against the state, not Jackson/the federal government. Jackson simply refused to give the decisions any effect and allowed Georgia to continue its violence against the Cherokee and other tribes.

The quote attributed to Jackson that "[Chief justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" is likely apocryphal, but things Jackson did say evoke the same spirit: that the court's decision fell "stillborn" and he could not use federal power to enforce it. However, Jackson at the same time was threatening to burn South Carolina to the ground because they refused to comply with federal law. He was just never going to use federal force to make Georgia comply with the Court's decision because he supported what the state was doing.  

Other politicians on both sides of the debate over Indian Removal also seemed to view Jackson's refusal to give effect to the court's ruling as disobeying the Court. Henry Clay (campaigned against removal) said that if the Worcester decision "be resisted [by Georgia], and the President refuses to enforce it, there is a virtual dissolution of the Union." Thomas Hart Benton (strongly supported Jackson and removal policies) wrote about how a writ of the Supreme Court was ignored, but he didn't have a problem with it because it was the correct course of action.

And if you want to talk relevance to current events, Vance has specifically cited Jackson's views of the court for how Trump should act when the courts rule in a way that he doesn't like.

kostornaias

Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court, leading to the infamous trail of tears.

Careful_Track2164

The Republican Party as a whole rejected the ruling in *Dred Scott v. Sandford* which ended up being the flashpoint for the Civil War. But they had some pretty solid reasons for doing so.

Dred Scott was a slave that was taken from Missouri into Illinois and Wisconsin territory and then back to Missouri, at which point he promptly sued for his freedom on the grounds that when he was transported into a free US territory he became free.

The case made it to the Supreme Court where a 7-2 decision held that 1) People of African descent cannot be citizens and were never intended to be citizens, thus the Plaintiff is without standing. This was not particularly controversial at the time as the naturalization laws limited citizenship to "free white men of good moral character." That should have been the end of the case. But Taney and the majority went further. They also held that 2) Congress has no right to regulate or ban slavery in US territories thus the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional and 3) The Fifth Amendment prohibits the Federal government from freeing slaves brought into US territories.

Holding #2 provoked utter fury in the North. For starters the idea that the government can ban slavery in US territories predates the Constitution itself; back when the country was ruled under the Articles of Confederation the government created the Northwest Territory and banned slavery in it. If the Framers of the Constitution had intended that Congress couldn't ban slavery in US territories they certainly would have said something about it. Further, it meant that all US territories were open to slavery and seeing as how popular sovereignty was the way that territories decided whether they were going to become free or slave states, it meant that most if not all US territories would become slave states and owing to the 3/5 clause, slavers would have outsized political influence for the rest of time. 

Second, the Republicans argued that if Dred Scott had no standing to file suit then the court had no jurisdiction over the rest of the case, which meant everything after holding #1 was non-binding and advisory only, not law. In their 1860 platform they decried the case as "political heresy" and argued the opposite; US territories were naturally free and Congress had no right to give existence to slavery in US territories and the party would govern according to that notion should they win the election.

The Southerners of course viewed those planks in the platform with understandable outrage. In their view the case permanently settled the slavery question and opened US territories to slavery and the Republicans can't just ignore a decision because they don't like it; that's equivalent to tearing the Constitution to shreds. So when the Republicans won the 1860 election the South bounced.

The result of course was a big war, and later the 13th Amendment to settle the question for all time lest Taney issue some more legal bullshit if the slavery question wasn't resolved before the war ended.

FlyHog421

Lincoln ignored the pro-slavery Supreme Court several times, including directly and blatantly ignoring the Dred Scott decision by outlawing slavery in the territories prior to the end of the war. He also went beyond the constitutional authority granted the president in war making, confiscation of property (even outside the southern states), and imprisoning political dissenters. Of course the southern papers pointed to all of these acts as "obvious evidence" of his "tyrannical ways" and the "threat" he posed to constitutional order.

The emaciation proclamation was genious in that it a) it only applied to states in rebellion, leaving slavery intact in union-occupied territory like southern LA, the VA coast, and parts of TN, and in northern and border states where it still existed like NJ, KY, MD and b) it was framed as a military matter rather than a socio-political one and therefore skirted the constraints of the constitution, falling within his power as commander in chief of the armed forces and not the head political executive.

USAFmuzzlephucker

Andrew Jackson
Worcester V. Georgia with the Indian Removal Act
He really just hated Native Americans that much, obviously very stupid reasons. Consequences? The Trail of Tears.

TheUltimateCrimson

Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Jackson…it’s happened

[deleted]

I don’t think you understand how aggressively FDR went after the Court. Upon reviewing his proposed bill to alter the Judiciary, the Senate committee wrote a report that said:

“The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. . . . It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”

Cartagraph

Emergency_Ad93

Didn’t Lincoln ignore some orders from the Taney court?

banshee1313

FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court to get favorable rulings.

Gary1836

TR and FDR come to mind, but really, most presidents since have openly violated the constitution. They took TR’s idea that the President can do anything “where the Constitution does not explicitly forbid him,” and ran with it.  They’ve abused the rights of the people in countless ways.  As soon as one President dreams up a new way to do so, all the others use it too. Civil asset forfeiture being an obvious example.

ActivePeace33

Jackson

FDR also threatened SCOTUS into submission.

"The switch in time that saved 9."

tolgren

FDR. Some of his programs to combat the Great Depression were declared unconstitutional yet he continued them.

eloonam

Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court, who sided with the Cherokee Nation in their relocation to Indian Territory AKA Trail of Tears. He said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

therealDrPraetorius

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the ACW.

WhataKrok

Quite a few of them. It’s not all that uncommon.

Frosty_Confusion_777

abry545

Jackson for sure with the Indian removal act. 


Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. 

FDR sent all those Japanese to internment camps via executive order. 
FDR also tried to stack the Supreme Court. 

Nixon with the watergate tapes. 

GW Bush with wiretapping. 

“Military interventions” by Truman, Johnson, GW Bush, and Obama were skirting a line, while not formal declarations of war, they didn’t get approval from Congress either.

Hoss_Bossington17

In the Garcia issue Trump hasn't openly defied the constitution or judicial orders. The lower court ruling was upheld and the administration has to facilitate the return of Garcia. Whatever the hell that means. I guess we could have a special OP mission and extract him from El Salvador but we know that will not happen. So in reality EL Salvador has to send him back though he isn't a citizen of the USA so unless the administration puts pressure on El Salvador he wont be coming back to MD/USA. We know that the administration is not going out of their way to get him back.

causticandflippant

Andrew Jackson comes immediately to mind. Trump has repeatedly made in known he’s one of his favorite Presidents.

hikerjer

a-potato-in-a-bag

Andrew Jackson, and Donald Trump. Andrew Jackson is widely considered one of the worst presidents in our history. Donald Trump, the same. The only people who think he’s a good president or the same people who voted for him. And he loves stupid people so 2+2 = 4. Stupid people think he’s a good president.

florida_man_1970

Lost-Task-8691

Lincoln, Jackson, GW Bush, Obama, Trump, Reagan, Nixon come to mind

jrc_80

That's campaign rhetoric, not defiance of a court order. And the Supreme Court did not rule that debt could not be forgiven, it ruled that the particular statute that Biden relied on did not authorize forgiveness. If he tried again  based on authority given under a different statute, that is not defying a court order.  I don't know enough about what, if any, action Biden took after the Supreme Court ruling, and I don't care enough to learn. If you choose to do that work, you may be able to persuade me that it amounted to defiance of a court order, but I doubt it. In any case, so far you've shown me nothing.

Any-Shirt9632

Founder of the Democrat Party Andrew Jackson famous for the Trail of Tears

bubbasox

We have never had a president who has acted contrary to the Constitution and the court in anything like the blatant and egregious way the Trump Admin is now trying to normalize. It should be obvious to everyone, but apparently isn't, that the president does not have the authority to end a program like USAID that was established by an act of Congress. Republicans in Congress have become so partisan and unprincipled that they are willing to ignore these disturbing actions by the president. 

The president's constitutionally defined role is primarily to enact and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The only previous president I can think of who did this kind of thing was Andrew Johnson, who ignored the Reconstruction Acts passed by Congress. He vetoed these bills and had his vetoes overridden by Congress. Johnson holds the record for vetoes overridden. Johnson's failure to comply with the law as passed by Congress should have been the cause for his impeachment. Instead, House leadership chose to make their case on his defiance of the Tenure of Office Act. The US Senate, which ruled on his guilt or innocence, was just as corrupt and  self-serving as the Senate that ruled on Trump's impeachment. Votes were bought with patronage appointments, political deals, and cash, and Johnson was acquitted by one vote.

It's a toss-up for worst president in the nation's history, between Trump and Andrew Johnson.

DavidJGill

Which presidents haven't?

  
Washington passed the First Bank of the United States, violating the government's lack of authority to print money.  Admittedly, though, given how many ways he could have defied it with significant support, that's pretty minor.  Also, I want to state that I agree that the action was needed, but still should have been accomplished via constitutional amendment.

  
Adams went nuts with the Alien and Sedition Acts, abusing the latter to full extent (which would then be used again in WW1, both times with Supreme Court justice blessing), then also passed the Judges Act of 1801.  Really, I can't think of any president with a greater unconstitutional record, because it was so blatantly used to shut down political enemies, and was even applied retroactively.  

  
Jefferson's is more debatable, as there was precedent for the Lousiana purchase, and his use of executive privilege made plenty of sense at the time, but is undeniably defying judicial order, even if that Supreme Court needed to be denied.  

  
And since these acts served as precedent for future administrations, some violations became so common that we don't even question most of them.

analyst_kolbe

TarkovskyAteABird

Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus and sending federal marshals  to arrest a Supreme Court justice as well as news paper editors, clergy, legislators, and other political opponents. Ft. Lafayette (now under the Brooklyn bridge) Was teeming with silenced voices.

Vivid-Feature-4629

SoSoDave

Jackson, Lincoln, Nixon, and Trump are the ones that first come to mind because their defiances were the most blatant, although many more presidents have most likely either less publicly defied or skirted language of the court

CosmicPharaoh

Obama drone striked Anwar Al Alaki. An American citizen, convicted of nothing, outside any theater of war. For of all things exercising his first amendment rights.

This was one of the most impeachable acts of any president in history.

The political and media climate of the time kinda swept it under the rug. Democrats weren't going to criticize their own guy, and Republicans weren't going to make waves about the execution of a radical cleric.

Past-Community-3871

moccasins_hockey_fan

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. 

-Andrew Jackson

CylonSandhill

Lincoln is one of the biggest offenders. FDR was another bad one.

Lincoln was probably the first. He basically wipes his ass with the Constitution during the Civil War. While I appreciate what was accomplished I find how it was done to be tragic and since then presidents have ignored the Constitution repeatedly.

FDR legitimately locked up people based on their race and tried to stack the Supreme Court to get his way.

Wraith-723

FDR. Although he stacked the SCOTUS to get his things done.

stabbingrabbit

Jackson, Lincoln and Trump.

Of those, Lincoln's is defensible for civil-war reasons that don't apply right now.... Congress was part time back then and Lincoln couldn't wait for them to assemble and suspend Habeas Corpus (which is a Congressional, not executive power). So he just did it (in order to keep Maryland from joining the rebellion).... The Supreme Court said 'nope', he ignored that until the next session of Congress when it was done the proper way.

There being no active civil war in the US right now, and Congress being a full time body rather than just gathering briefly and adjourning, that excuse is no longer valid.....

Dave_A480

Lincoln denied habeas corpus proceedings which was probably the most unlawful act of any president. Truman seized the railroads which were being struck and defied court orders. Those are the two most serious acts of which I am aware.

whalebackshoal

IndependenceMean8774

Jackson and Trump are basically the prime examples. Jackson openly refused to enforce a Court order blocking Indian Removal, saying that "The court has made their decision. Now let them enforce it." This led to the Trail of Tears, which was basically his intention the entire time. Trump is basically pulling motivation from Jackson with his current policy choices tbh.

Nixon also comes to mind; he refused to give up tapes that would incriminate him after the SC ordered him to. After a while, he did surrender them, but they were erased in large areas.

ParfaitFast2365

Look at FDR and how we have government corporations.

ReactionAble7945

Jackson for sure famously and multiple times. Most famously regarding the national bank. 

Nixon in reguards to his tapes release. 

Arguably some of the back and forth about habits corpus with Lincoln (although i think he had a good argument on his authority there). 

You could also make an argument for the Bush administration really pushing the edges of detained rights that were "established" (perhaps not far enough mind you) by the supreme court. Bush stepped around them in ways.

ClumsyFleshMannequin

When the only thing people can reference happened before the Civil War…. Maybe we should start the impeachment process?

RedWhiteAndBooo

Lincoln defied the Supreme Court. Correctly I might add.

Ill_Professor3577

Johnson, fought tooth and nail against Reconstruction. Congress had to threaten him with emplacement to get him to cool his jets.

Jumpstartgaming45

It’s said that FDR told the Supreme Court that he would defy their ruling if they didn’t give him what he wanted in Ex parte Quirin.

The Supreme Court ended up giving him what he wanted, so I guess it’s not really openly defying the Court. But c’mon…

BillManougian

Worcester v. Georgia and Ex Parte Merryman come to mind. So that’s Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. 

FDR didn’t disobey court orders, but historians speculate that his threat of court packing pressured the federal courts into going along with the New Deal

justadecent-guy

KJWDistillers-Ouray

Lincoln actually literally suspended due process. Like, explicitly.

MrAudacious817

Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus during the Civil War.

Gunfighter9

Lincoln was the first president to suspend the constitution.  Others have as well.  Fdr,  I think gw bush. Others too

Fun_Ruin29

Lincoln during the Civil War on multiple occasions. He suspended Habeus Corpus for a time. There was also a strong argument at the time that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and he ignored it. This was one of Lincoln's primary motivations in pushing the 13th Amendment as hard as he did. Lincoln essentially took the view that during the Civil War he had "War Powers." He held that, while not specifically granted to him, he required them in order to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution and the Union.

orangedragon112

Adventurous_Pen_Is69

James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower (maybe, Korea was iffy,) Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, and current President Donald Trump, depending on how the administration answers some of the charges through the Justice Department. It's not unusual for administrations to come into conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution is dynamic, not static. Political winds shift, and even the founding fathers said the Constitution needed to be put under a Constitutional Convention and reviewed fully and adapted to changing realities at least every 12-20 years, but ideological purists who have no concept of reality have, this far, been ridiculously hostile to this advice and attempted to enshrine the Constitution as some sort of holy document.

jackinyourcrack

Teddy did a few times not to the same extent as Jackson and Trump tho.

SecondRateStinky

Squidward214558

Jacskon and Trump, I believe.

One did it to faciltate a genocide and the other...

  
Well, there's precedent for doing it to support a genocide.

GamemasterJeff

Spare_Freedom4339

Wilson and FDR are the most prominent ones that come to my mind

jollyroger822

Odd_Interview_2005

Jackson, for a bunch of stuff

Lincoln Suspended Habeus Corpus,

FDR locked up citizens and tried to pack the courts as well as forced everyone to hand over their gold

Obama Murdered and American citizen without trial

Trump and Biden for Covid lockdowns.

Nixon and the watergate tapes.

Bush and the war on terror, the patriot act which every president since has expanded.

Wilson on the first amendment

Truman siezing steel mills

Obama suspending Habeus Corpus

Biden violating the 3rd amendment

Lanracie

myloveisajoke

No. Less importantly, the budget "problem" is not about ceding  power, it is about power struggles leading to deadlock.  Second, nothing that has happened before, ever, involved allowing a President to run wild, in the process, squandering almost a century of global leadership, assaulting the rule of law, and acting with sociopathic cruelty.   I believe that the majority of Republican Congressmen know they have betrayed their oath to support and defend the Constitution and faithfully perform their duties.  That can be said of no other Congress. And note that my last sentence acknowledged that prior Congress has upheld their path, regardless of whether their actions aligned with my partisan or policy preferences. I am not, as a prior poster labeled me, a boot-licker.  Though I am a Democrat, I am harshly critical of them in numerous respects and believe they bear significant responsibility for our dire situation. Finally, anyone who comes back with "what about" isolated acts on5 the past is in denial, or worse.

George Washington. There is a great book, George Washington's Navy, how he went behind Congress's back to establish a navy, turning merchant vessels into pirates fighting for the recently formed USA.

Few_Aside5151

Lincoln did it during the civil war, though most people believe the ends justified the means in this case.

GraveyardTree

Lincoln actually violated the constitutions on multiple occasions....

SeaAssistance9432

CoolHandLuke-1

Biden ignored them all the time. Nothing happined.

Charming-Ad-2384

Jackson, Nixon, Clinton, Trump. None as blatantly obvious as Trump.

Piobob

Andrew Jackson was the only other one before Trump... who sees himself as like another Jackson.

anewbys83

ThrowAway2MD

Revolutionary-Cup954

Biden with student loans and Obama with immigration

Agitated-Tell

New_Opportunity_4821

Pretty sure its just Trump and Jackson right? I dont think Nixon directly violated the constitution or the supreme court

KvDOLPHIN

The constitution? Probably judt about every one. Especially if we count extrajudical killings of Americans over seas.

Biden ignored the Supreme Court three times twice for college tuition and once for evictions

Mission-Confusion555

Violated the constitution?  Easier to ask who didn’t violate it.

All of them.   They are all liars and cheats and don’t give an F about us middle class people.   Left, right, middle; they don’t give a shit about you.

Direct-Tumbleweed141

Biden and obama, went against the constitution also

Civil_Secretary_4526

According_Repeat7386


* Please provide a source to the image/video below the comment. If source is not provided then the post will be removed.

* Use the same title as that of the source link. Editorialised titles are not allowed

* If it is Original Content (video/pic taken by you) then please respond with OC below the comment

* If it's meme/satire, please use the meme/cartoon flair and provide the link to the original creator. Memes will be allowed as per mod discretion and can be removed without explanation.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

In other words governor/president can hold elected representatives to ransom by not passing bills, is that what they want ?

-Divided_We_Stand

This govt is quasi autocratic, they don’t let other govt work so that they can score political brownies against them , and when other parties calls them out , they start to cry and ends up calling them against the federalism or idea of India . We have a petty leader as prime minister and evil party bjp ruling us. For that party , only electoral win matters , they have already sold national interest to fucking Adani

Bol wo rahi hai lekin shabd kisi aur ke hai

GoodAd5004

charavaka

A 3 month timeline to reject a bill or pass a bill, should be enough time. What is the debate in this issue? 

Can someone make a rumour that the Governor post is created by British Rule and they are still working for the British. So that our beloved RSS teams and co., will go and destroy their Bhavans.

ForzaFerrari7

Supreme leader ne bola to inhone puch liya

GlitteringWafer9263

https://x.com/mkstalin/status/1922908484372398116

I strongly condemn the Union Government’s Presidential reference, which attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and other precedents. This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate. This is nothing but a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected State Governments by placing them under the control of Governors serving as agents of the Union Government. It also directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
Why should there be any objection to prescribing time limits for Governors to act? Is the BJP seeking to legitimise its Governors’ obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in Bill assent? Does the Union Government intend to paralyse non-BJP State Legislatures? Our nation stands at a critical juncture. The questions raised in the reference reveal the BJP-led Union Government’s sinister intent to distort the Constitution’s basic distribution of powers and incapacitate the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties. Thus, it poses a clear exigent threat to State autonomy. In these grave circumstances, I urge all non-BJP States and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the #Constitution. We will fight this battle with all our might.

frizene26

BionicWanderer2506

###[Meta] Sticky Comment

[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.  

[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.

*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[Link to the bill text](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm). It's in a big omnibus spending bill, so it's a pain to navigate.

The full section reads as follows (sorry if the formatting is fucked):

&gt;                              (I) In general.--Subject to 
                                subclause (III), if the officer 
                                determines that an alien does not have a 
                                credible fear of persecution, the 
                                officer shall order the alien removed 
                                from the United States without further 
                                hearing or review.
                                
                                (II) Record of determination.--The                       
                                officer shall prepare a written record 
                                of a determination under subclause (I). 
                                Such record shall include a summary of 
                                the material facts as stated by the 
                                applicant, such additional facts (if 
                                any) relied upon by the officer, and the 
                                officer's analysis of why, in the light 
                                of such facts, the alien has not 
                                established a credible fear of 
                                persecution. A copy of the officer's 
                                interview notes shall be attached to the 
                                written summary.
                                    ``(III) Review of determination.--
                                The Attorney General shall provide by 
                                regulation and upon the alien's request 
                                for prompt review by an immigration 
                                judge of a determination under subclause 
                                (I) that the alien does not have a 
                                credible fear of persecution. Such 
                                review shall include an opportunity for 
                                the alien to be heard and questioned by 
                                the immigration judge, either in person 
                                or by telephonic or video connection. 
                                Review shall be concluded as 
                                expeditiously as possible, to the 
                                maximum extent practicable within 24 
                                hours, but in no case later than 7 days 
                                after the date of the determination 
                                under subclause (I).
                                    ``(IV) Mandatory detention.--Any 
                                alien subject to the procedures under 
                                this clause shall be detained pending a 
                                final determination of credible fear of 
                                persecution and, if found not to have 
                                such a fear, until removed.
                       (iv) Information about interviews.--The 
                      Attorney General shall provide information 
                      concerning the asylum interview described in this 
                      subparagraph to aliens who may be eligible. An 
                      alien who is eligible for such interview may 
                      consult with a person or persons of the alien's 
                      choosing prior to the interview or any review 
                      thereof, according to regulations prescribed

Section (I) is immediately contradicted by Section (III), specifically saying that an alien can request and will be provided a review of their case by an immigration judge.

MiserableMulberryMan

The Supreme Court is examining whether it can intervene when governors delay assent to state bills, highlighting the delicate balance between state and federal powers.

Judicial Review of Governor's Assent on State Bills

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want