Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense
Spanish translation:
quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa
English term
Argentina
Certified Translator/Interpreter EN ES
Native in: Spanish 
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish to English
who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense
Oct 8, 2024 20:35: Sandro Tomasi Created KOG entry
Oct 9, 2024 02:25: Sandro Tomasi changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/1235428">Sandro Tomasi's</a> old entry - "who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense "" to ""quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa""
Proposed translations
quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que pudiera invocarse como defensa
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2024-10-04 02:13:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you to Jonathan for bringing the double negative to our attention!
Based on the context of Samuels v. Mackell, cited in Roe v. Wade (below), and the double negative in the original phrase, the final translation of “who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense” should be:
“quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa.”
This version maintains the double negative, indicating that the rights Hallford did allege could be asserted as a defense against prosecution.
Citation from Roe v. Wade:
The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688. Pp. 125-127.
| Si, me confundia un poco el "not assertable". |
| agree |
Andrew Bramhall
: Assertable means invocable, yes;
2 hrs
|
|
Hi, Andrew. I'm changing my answer due to Jonathan's comment about the double negative. Feel free to change your response if you don't agree.
|
|
| agree |
teju
3 hrs
|
|
Hi, teju. I'm changing my answer due to Jonathan's comment about the double negative. Feel free to change your response if you don't agree.
|
|
| agree |
Mónica Algazi
: Sí, ...que no pudiera ... Saludos, Sandro.
21 hrs
|
|
Gracias por la confirmación, Mónica.
|
|
| agree |
Marcelo González
: Así es, tal y como ya se ha dicho y que ya señalas en tu propuesta. In the glossary entry that'll appear at the top, I'm sure it'll be sporting or wearing its "Sunday best." ;))
1 day 21 mins
|
|
Gracias, Marcelo.
|
Spain
EN/DE/NL>ES legal, medical translator
Native in: Spanish (Variants: Canarian, Standard-Spain)
Works in: English to Spanish, German to Spanish, Dutch to Spanish, and 1 more.
los cuales no adujeron derechos federales de protección ejercibles como defensa
| Thank you! |
Austria
Retd.T&I, Barrister & Austro-Advokat
Native in: English (Variants: Scottish, British)
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, French to English, and 6 more.
quien no planteó ningún derecho amparado por la ley fed. (foral) no oponible en vía de excepción
I also included ley foral (local law) as a shorter and fuzzy-match version of ley federal.
I aslo do verily believe that this is a non-literal scenario of an Arg. excepción oponible (assertable: that can be set up as a AmE collateral BrE issue estoppel).
Cuando en derecho se dice que algo es *oponible* es porque se tiene la facultad para hacer valer un derecho frente a un tercero.
Discussion
After reviewing the context from Samuels v. Mackell, and Roe v. Wade (below), the phrase “who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense” indicates that Hallford did not claim any federally protected right that could not be used as a defense. In other words, the rights he alleged could be asserted as a defense against prosecution.
The structure of the sentence contains a double negative, which can make it confusing. To clarify: Hallford did not allege a right that could not be used as a defense, implying that any rights he did allege would be valid as a defense. This suggests that Hallford’s alleged rights were indeed relevant and could be invoked as a defense against the state prosecutions.
The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688. Pp. 125-127.
Hope it helps.