right to judicial review

The proponents say most veterans themselves do not favor the right to judicial review.

The municipalities lost their case when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that municipalities have no right to judicial review of the chartering process.

The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether the right to judicial review of a jury's award of damages is constitutionally required to protect defendants against excessive judgments.

If the appeal is denied in whole or in part, OSC's written appeal decision will inform you of your right to judicial review of that determination.

Even as American citizens, the administration argues, they have no right to judicial review of their status and may be held without charges, without bail and without access to a lawyer.

While the Board will hear a party's appeal from a decision rejecting its objections to an election, there is no right to judicial review of the NLRB's decision.

If the respondent elects to settle the charges, it may sign a consent agreement (without admitting liability), consent to entry of a final order, and waive all right to judicial review.

Since it was human nature for the I.N.S. to make some mistakes, I asked, why had the new statute in many areas stripped away the right to judicial review of the agency's decisions?

The appeal would be heard by a three-judge panel in sessions closed to the public and the press, and suspects would have no right to judicial review except on narrow points of law.

"It's a vindication of the right to judicial review," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the immigrants' rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union, who was involved in all of today's cases.

Nor is any account taken of guaranteeing the right of appeal and right to judicial review at both the executing and issuing stage, nor any account of the rights of the individual concerned.

She sought to argue that the amendments did not deprive her of the right to judicial review of the legality, rationality and constitutionality of her detention and, in the alternative, if they did, the amendments were unconstitutional.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with the majority that Rule 11(f) itself did not give a right to judicial review, but he said a judge had a legal obligation to make an independent review in any event.

The question now before us is whether the habeas statute confers a right to judicial review of the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not "ultimate sovereignty."

Yet when a EU Member State re-introduces internment without trial and abolishes the right to judicial review, we remain silent and condone the kind of treatment that undermines civil liberties and totally ignores the European Convention on Human Rights.

In this landmark case for detainee rights, the US Supreme Court ruled that the detainees in Guantánamo, and foreign nationals in general, have the right to judicial review of their detentions by the U.S. court system under habeas corpus.

The preclusion of the right to judicial review was a violation of Article 5 of the Constitution, which was to be read in a broad manner, in line with Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Another.

In the first of three cases this month on the right to judicial review of those deemed enemy combatants, most justices seemed to regard the World War II-era precedent that is the cornerstone of the administration's strategy as ambiguous, irrelevant or even counter to the administration's position.

But in a confidential memorandum analyzing the plan, Randolph W. Gaines, the health agency's deputy chief counsel for Social Security, said that the rules "might be viewed by the public as an attempt by the agency to place unnecessary and burdensome barriers" on people exercising their right to judicial review.

Justice Frederick Arthur Chua ruled that the amendments to Article 149 and to the ISA did have the effect of depriving the applicant of her right to judicial review of the legality, rationality and constitutionality of her detention under the ISA.