Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
LeClerc v. Webb
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 29, 2005No. Nos. 03-30752, 03-31009Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCarl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge
I concur in the panel’s majority decision affirming the district courts’ rulings that: (1) Section 3(B) is not preempted by federal immigration or trade policy; (2) the defendants’ jurisdiction arguments should be denied; (3) the plaintiffs’ due process arguments should be dismissed, (4) plaintiff Affleck lacked standing to assert a claim under the NAFTA, and (5) the Le-Clerc plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider should be denied. For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim should be dismissed.
First, I disagree with…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Graham v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mathews v. DiazSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.