![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png/640px-US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png&w=640&q=50)
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
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.[1] The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit |
Full case name | DETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Decided | August 26, 2002 |
Citations | Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437 (6th Cir. Apr. 19, 2002) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Damon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. Carr |
Case opinions | |
Affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. |