Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft (original) (raw)

About DBpedia

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.

thumbnail

Property Value
dbo:abstract 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. (en)
dbo:thumbnail wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png?width=300
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp%3Fentity=detroit_free_press_1 http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/default.html http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/detroit-free-press-(haddad)-v.-creppy-and-ashcroft/north-jersey-media-group-v.-c
dbo:wikiPageID 29439717 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength 10683 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID 1043415471 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink dbr:Metro_Times dbr:Detroit_Free_Press dbr:Attorney_General_Ashcroft dbr:United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit dbc:Detroit_Free_Press dbr:Visa_(document) dbc:Legal_history_of_Michigan dbc:Proceedings_surrounding_the_September_11_attacks dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:Damon_Keith dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:North_Jersey_Media_Group dbr:The_Detroit_News dbc:2002_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Chinese_Exclusion_Act dbr:John_Ashcroft dbr:John_Conyers dbr:Lebanon dbc:United_States_Fifth_Amendment_case_law dbr:Martha_Craig_Daughtrey dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 dbr:Kleindienst_v._Mandel dbr:September_11_Attacks dbr:Detroit_News
dbp:citations Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437 (en)
dbp:court dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit
dbp:dateDecided 2002-08-26 (xsd:date)
dbp:fullName DETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants-Appellants. (en)
dbp:judges Damon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. Carr (en)
dbp:name Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft (en)
dbp:opinions Affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate dbt:Cite_web dbt:Orphan dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Infobox_court_case
dct:subject dbc:Detroit_Free_Press dbc:Legal_history_of_Michigan dbc:Proceedings_surrounding_the_September_11_attacks dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:2002_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Fifth_Amendment_case_law
rdf:type yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity
rdfs:comment 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. (en)
rdfs:label Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft (en)
owl:sameAs freebase:Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft wikidata:Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4jEzH
prov:wasDerivedFrom wikipedia-en:Detroit_Free_Press_v._Ashcroft?oldid=1043415471&ns=0
foaf:depiction wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf wikipedia-en:Detroit_Free_Press_v._Ashcroft
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of dbr:Detroit_Free_Press_versus_Ashcroft dbr:Detroit_free_press_v_ashcroft
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of dbr:Rabih_Haddad dbr:Damon_Keith dbr:Detroit_Free_Press_versus_Ashcroft dbr:Detroit_free_press_v_ashcroft
is foaf:primaryTopic of wikipedia-en:Detroit_Free_Press_v._Ashcroft