Haddad v. Ashcroft
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
76 Fed. App'x 672 (2003)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American soil, the government instituted removal proceedings against a number of noncitizens, consisting primarily of young men of Arab and Muslim background. Rabih Haddad (plaintiff) was one of the men. Haddad was a native of Lebanon who had lived in Michigan on and off with his family since 1988. In 1998, Haddad overstayed his six-month tourist visa. In December 2001, agents of the U.S. government (defendant) arrested Haddad and initiated proceedings to deport him. Haddad’s immigration proceedings were closed to the public based on the designation of his case as “special interest.” Haddad sued the government, challenging the constitutionality of closed hearings, and the district court granted Haddad’s motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring the immigration court to hold new, open public hearings. On remand, open hearings were conducted in Haddad’s case, and a final order of removal was entered. In the court of appeals, Haddad petitioned for review of his removal order, but the petition was denied as untimely. Haddad was deported from the United States. The government filed a motion to remand the matter back to the district court with instructions to vacate and dismiss Haddad’s complaint as moot.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
