42 U.S.C. § 252
Medical examination of aliens
The Surgeon General shall provide for making, at places within the United States or in other countries, such physical and mental examinations of aliens as are required by the immigration laws, subject to administrative regulations prescribed by the Attorney General and medical regulations prescribed by the Surgeon General with the approval of the Secretary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Bilbro v. Haley, 229 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.S.C. 2017).
Bilbro v. Haley, 229 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.S.C. 2017). “See 42 U.S.C. § 252 ; 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(1)(A); 8 • U.”
Atlas Tel. Co. v. Corp. Com'n of Oklahoma, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (W.D. Okla. 2004). “Jurisdiction The RTCs bring these actions under 42 U.S.C. § 252 (e)(6) of the Telecommunications Act.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Connect Commc'ns, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (E.D. Ark. 1999). “For these reasons, the Court concludes that SWBT has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that this court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under either 42 U.S.C. § 252 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , as was asserted in its Complaint.”
At & T Commc'ns of Ohio, Inc. v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 29 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “This provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act authorizes this Court to review only determinations made by state commissions under § 252(e)(6) or the failure of state commissions to carry out their responsibilities under the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 252 (e)(5). The statutory scheme…”
Millennium One Commc'ns, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 361 F. Supp. 2d 634 (W.D. Tex. 2005). “Section 252(a)(1) of the FTA provides in pertinent part that “an incumbent local exchange carrier may negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier or carriers without regard to the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of…”
Hurst v. Texas Dep't of Assistive & Rehab. Serv., 392 F. Supp. 2d 794 (W.D. Tex. 2005). “Therefore, the states were put on notice, and the Telecommunications Act provided a clear statement, that if the states wished to accept this limited mission, they had to acquiesce to the waiver of their Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
Hill v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 714 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1983). “See also 42 U.S.C. § 252 (1976). That Congress intended the determination to be made solely by trained physicians is borne out by the last sentence of section 1224, which allows for an appeal of a medical determination of excludability under 8 U.”
Brown v. Barr (10th Cir. 2019). “See 42 U.S.C. § 252 (authorizing promulgation of regulations regarding medical examinations of aliens); 8 C.”
Peoples v. Bahakel (N.D. Ala. 2021). “42 U.S.C. § 252 . This statute is not relevant to Mr.”
Linda Cabello Garcia v. Uscis (9th Cir. 2025). “§ 1182 (a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 252 ; Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S.”
GTE North Inc v. Strand (6th Cir. 2000). “and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the MPSC’s order under In this case, the district court must decide whether the ripeness 42 U.S.C. § 252 (e)(6), the FTA provision limiting federal inquiry demands that one of GTE’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.