Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
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.
Wikipage redirect
primaryTopic
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
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.
has abstract
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft ...... hearings was unconstitutional.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
29,439,717
Wikipage revision ID
736,707,967
citations
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437
date decided
2002-08-26
full name
DETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Pl ...... et al., Defendants-Appellants.
judges
Damon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. Carr
name
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
opinions
Affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional.
subject
comment
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft ...... hearings was unconstitutional.
@en
label
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
@en