U.S. federal courts

U.S. federal courts can manage large multi-defendant criminal indictments by dividing defendants into smaller groups for separate status conferences and pretrial scheduling.

U.S. federal courts have generally recognized that noncitizens who are detained while residing within the United States are entitled to constitutional due process protections, whereas noncitizens stopped at or near the border are not entitled to the same due process protections.

U.S. federal courts regard police officers giving false testimony under oath as intolerable because such conduct undermines public confidence in the justice system.

Under U.S. federal practice, grand jury materials are typically kept secret and courts apply a high legal standard to justify the rare unsealing of grand jury transcripts.

U.S. federal and state judges have asserted that military involvement in civilian affairs is legally fraught and can threaten constitutional liberties, leading courts to scrutinize or block domestic deployments of military forces.

U.S. federal courts can issue orders that prohibit warrantless arrests in the absence of probable cause.

Criminal plea agreements for illegal reentry convictions can include provisions resulting in a defendant being sentenced to time already served and deported as part of the disposition.

U.S. federal district courts can be convened as three-judge panels to hear certain constitutional challenges to redistricting and other matters.

U.S. federal courts can issue temporary orders requiring immigration detention facilities to provide detainees with basic necessities and humane conditions, including adequate bedding, sanitation, showers, three meals a day, bottled water upon request, menstrual products, and prescribed medications.

In U.S. federal criminal proceedings, defendants can file motions asking a judge to dismiss charges and to exclude or suppress specific evidence.

U.S. federal courts have authority to issue orders that compel federal agencies to disburse program benefits such as SNAP under appropriate legal claims.

U.S. federal courts can evaluate claims that a criminal prosecution was selective or vindictive and consider those claims as part of litigation over criminal charges.

U.S. federal courts have the authority to issue orders that can require law enforcement agents to wear identification badges, restrict specified riot-control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists, and mandate body-worn cameras for oversight.

U.S. federal courts can issue restraining orders or injunctions that block the executive branch from deploying National Guard troops to a state or locality.

Under U.S. law, a defendant seeking dismissal on grounds of vindictive prosecution must prove that prosecutors acted with genuine animus in bringing the case and that prosecutors singled the defendant out because of that animus.

Under U.S. law, a selective-prosecution claim requires the defendant to prove that similarly situated persons were not prosecuted.

It is notably difficult in U.S. practice to obtain dismissal of a criminal case on grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution, and relatively few such attempts reach the discovery phase.

In U.S. civil procedure, defendants can petition to remove a state-court civil case to federal court when they assert that federal constitutional or statutory questions are implicated.

In U.S. federal criminal proceedings, an arraignment before a magistrate judge typically involves the judge explaining the charges to the defendant, informing the defendant of the potential penalties, and asking the defendant to enter a plea (for example, not guilty).

U.S. federal courts, including U.S. Courts of Appeals, have authority to review and issue injunctions that can block or permit federal deployments of National Guard members within a state.

U.S. federal judges can credit a cooperating witness's demonstrated honesty and sincere remorse at sentencing, and such credit can result in noncustodial penalties such as home detention as well as orders for forfeiture and restitution.

In U.S. federal criminal practice, an indictment typically marks the start of a protracted court process that can include pretrial motions, discovery, and a potential trial.

Defense attorneys in U.S. federal cases commonly file pretrial motions to dismiss indictments, sometimes arguing grounds such as selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution.

Many U.S. federal courts use random assignment to allocate judges to cases as a means of promoting impartiality.

Indictments in U.S. federal cases sometimes do not identify confidential associates or anonymous sources, which can complicate external assessment of the strength and specifics of the alleged evidence.

U.S. federal courts assessing constitutional challenges to election regulations require plaintiffs to allege individualized harm (injury) to establish standing.

U.S. federal courts have rules governing prosecutors' public conduct and social media activity, and alleged violations of those rules can prompt a judicial inquiry or require the court to request remedial steps.

U.S. federal courts can issue temporary injunctions that block presidential orders or federal troop deployments when a court finds the president likely exceeded legal authority.

U.S. federal courts can issue temporary restraining orders blocking federal deployment or federalization of state National Guard forces if the courts determine there is insufficient justification and that deployment could harm state sovereignty.

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 establishes statutory time limits for the commencement of federal criminal trials in the United States.

U.S. federal courts have the authority to review executive-branch actions and to issue orders, including preliminary injunctions, that can temporarily block executive decisions about federal spending while litigation proceeds.

U.S. federal courts may take matters under advisement, meaning a judge can hear arguments and evidence and then issue a ruling at a later time rather than immediately at the end of a hearing.

U.S. federal courts have authority to issue temporary restraining orders and administrative stays that can affect the deployment or federalization status of National Guard troops.

Criminal indictments issued by foreign courts, such as U.S. federal indictments, can form the basis for extradition requests involving Australia.

In U.S. federal criminal cases, sentencing can include imprisonment, a period of supervised release, court-ordered restitution to victim agencies, and forfeiture of property derived from criminal proceeds.

A U.S. federal court can issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily bar government actions while related litigation proceeds.

U.S. federal courts can issue restraining orders that limit the use of riot-control weapons against peaceful protesters and members of the press.

Federal courts can impose oversight conditions on law enforcement personnel involved in litigation, including requirements to wear body-worn cameras and to make regular reports to the court.

In U.S. federal criminal procedure, when a judge finds a 'realistic likelihood' of prosecutorial vindictiveness, a rebuttable presumption arises that shifts the burden to the government to provide objective, on-the-record explanations demonstrating the prosecution was not retaliatory; if the government fails to rebut that presumption, a court may dismiss the indictment.

Sentencing recommendations in U.S. federal criminal cases are frequently posted publicly on federal court case dockets.

U.S. federal courts have evaluated state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing in women's sports under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Federal courts in the United States can enjoin the use of newly drawn congressional maps and order that alternative maps be used for upcoming elections when resolving redistricting disputes.

U.S. federal courts can issue preliminary injunctions to block the implementation of newly drawn congressional maps while legal challenges are resolved.