| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
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.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 title= Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft )〕 The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.
==Background==
During the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US launched an effort to counter terrorist activity, including one to limit those that could attend the deportation hearings of foreign aliens. Under the lead of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy directed all immigration judges to close to the public and the press all immigration hearings that were thought to be of "special interest" to the September 11 investigation. Special interest cases were defined as "those where the alien is suspected of having connections to, or information about, terrorist organizations that are plotting against the United States."〔 These cases were intended to be handled "in secret, closed off from the public" 〔 to uphold a "compelling government interest" of national security. Officials closed the cases to any public or press and removed them from the court’s docket, eliminating public records of the case. This rule of closed deportation hearings became known as the "Creppy Directive."〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|