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." <br />To discuss the cases, we have Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.<br />As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

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.

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." <br>To discuss the cases, we have Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.<br>As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at <a href="http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast" rel="noopener">http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast</a>

News

Politics

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law &amp; Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at <a href="http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast</a>

Share U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Sign up to save your podcasts

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

More shows like SCOTUScast

FedSoc Events

FedSoc Forums

Faculty Division Bookshelf

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

Necessary & Proper Podcast