Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,529,253 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Ali v. District of Columbia.


U.S. Appeals Court

INTERSTATE COMPACT A voluntary arrangement between two or more states that is designed to solve their common problems and that becomes part of the laws of each state.

Interstate compacts in the United States were first used by the American colonies to settle boundary disputes.
 

Ali v. District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). , 278 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A District of Columbia inmate who was transferred to a Virginia prison and then back again, sued state and District officials alleging various violations of his constitutional rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (, also known as RFRA) is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws which substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.  (RFRA RFRA Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
RFra Rhine Franconian (linguistics) 
). The district court dismissed the action and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the inmate could not establish that D.C. prison officials were liable under [section] 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by Virginia prison officials. The Virginia officials required the inmate to register under this birth name rather than his religiously-inspired legal name. The court noted that the Interstate Corrections Compact provided that confinement in the receiving state would not deprive an inmate of any legal rights which he would have had if confined in the sending state, but did not waive the receiving state's sovereign immunity The legal protection that prevents a sovereign state or person from being sued without consent.

Sovereign immunity is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, and agencies from being sued without its consent.
 under the Eleventh Amendment. (District of Columbia Lorton Central Facility, and Sussex II, Virginia.)
COPYRIGHT 2002 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:violation of United States Constitution. 11th Amendment
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Geographic Code:1U5DC
Date:May 1, 2002
Words:169
Previous Article:Tucker v. Evans.(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Doty v. Doyle.(habeas relief)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Simpson v. Gallant.(FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, ASSOC.)(Brief Article)
Simpson v. Gallant.(PRETRIAL DETENTION)(Brief Article)
Espinal v. Goord.(DISCIPLINE)(case regarding impartiality towards a prisoner)(Brief Article)
Jones v. Ray.(RELEASE)(violation of due process of law)(Brief Article)
Shelton v. Angelone.(USE OF FORCE)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment and United States Constitution. 14th Amendment)(Brief...
Porter v. Selsky.(violation of civil rights)(Brief Article)
Porter v. Selsky.(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment and United States Constitution. 14th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Terry Ex Rel. Terry v. Hill.(PRETRIAL DETENTION)(Brief Article)
Mladek v. Day.(prisoner abuse claim)(Brief Article)
Food.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles