U.S. Supreme Court rules against California border-crossers

New Jersey immigration lawyer Paul F. Tompkins, who helped stop an illegal immigrant’s deportation in a case that went before the high court, says his client is “very proud” of the outcome.

Tompkins said he was “delighted” that the justices decided to take a stand against the practice of detaining people without legal representation, and he hopes to help immigrants with legal representation.

The ruling could have a major impact on immigration policy, said Thomas Szala, a professor of immigration law at Georgetown University and an expert on immigration law.

He predicted that the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees could begin providing legal assistance to people who have been detained without charge or trial.

“The court made a very significant, strong statement that, if they are detained without legal counsel, they should be able to get relief from the government,” Szala said.

The justices’ decision came as the U-N.

special rapporteur on human rights, Stephen O’Brien, urged a new effort to end detentions of asylum seekers in the U, saying that in some countries, such as Sri Lanka and China, people were forced to take legal action against governments for holding them.

Tens of thousands of migrants and refugees are being held in detention camps in the Philippines and in the United States, which has been the subject of international outrage over a wave of deportations and other human rights violations by President Rodrigo Duterte, who has declared martial law in the southern Philippines.

Tropical storm Tacloban, which devastated the Philippines on Wednesday, has killed more than 400 people, according to the United Nations.

The court’s ruling also means that the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries with extradition treaties with the Philippines will no longer have to defend people in the criminal courts when they are being detained.

The Supreme Court also sided with a man who had been arrested on charges of being a drug trafficker in New York, a case he said was politically motivated and based on the unfounded accusation that he had stolen an electrician’s license plate.

The decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, said Richard A. Siegel, a former U.K. solicitor general who is now an associate professor at George Washington University law school.

He said he expected the justices to consider the case as it was being heard, and to rule in favor of his client.

“There will be some cases that will be appealed and some cases where the court will say it was wrong,” Siegel said.

“I think it will be the opposite of what the high courts did.”

In the first case the court decided to hear, in February 2017, a man accused of carrying out a shooting spree at the New York Stock Exchange was granted bail and released from custody.

He was later released after being found guilty of attempting to kidnap a woman, who police later said was pregnant with his child.

The U.C. Berkeley law professor said the ruling was a “historic victory” in helping people who had sought asylum in the country be freed.

“This case shows that the system is working,” said David Yergin, a Harvard law professor who is the former chief U.F.O. counsel to President Donald Trump.

The case is “a great example of the power of the U.”

Supreme Court’s “pro-American principle,” Yerkin said, “and how it is being used to push back against a kind of political repression of people fleeing tyranny.”

The U-S.

government’s role in detaining immigrants without due process has become a source of public scrutiny and political controversy in recent years.

Trump, who was elected president in 2016, has threatened to close the U.-S.

borders and said the country’s immigration laws should be changed.

He has said that his administration would seek to “open the borders” to more immigrants from certain countries.

Trump has repeatedly said that the country would be better off if immigrants from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq were deported.