EPISODE · Mar 3, 2020 · 33 MIN
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
from SCOTUScast · host The Federalist Society
On February 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Sineneng-Smith. At issue is "whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional." To discuss the cases, we have Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
What this episode covers
On February 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Sineneng-Smith. At issue is "whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional." To discuss the cases, we have Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
NOW PLAYING
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.