Digital Commons Network^™

Doe Not Worry: Expanding Protections For Unaccompanied Children, Heidi E. Davis

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

A recent Fourth Circuit decision created a circuit split regarding the standard applied to constitutional violations in secure holding facilities. The more “liberal” professional judgment standard—as promulgated by Youngberg v. Romeo and applied to unaccompanied immigrant minors in Doe 4 ex rel. Lopez—is necessary but insufficient for the protection of unaccompanied children. This Note first examines the origins of the professional judgment standard in the Youngberg case. Then, cases are surveyed showing that the Supreme Court has recognized children as a vulnerable population, and current regulations, legislation, and court opinions recognize the vulnerabilities of unaccompanied children. With these ideas in …

Second Chances In Criminal And Immigration Law, Ingrid V. Eagly

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay publishes the remarks given by Professor Ingrid Eagly at the 2022 Fuchs Lecture at Indiana University Maurer School of Law. The Fuchs Lecture was established in honor of Ralph Follen Fuchs in 2001. Professor Fuchs, who served on the Indiana University law faculty from 1946 until his retirement in 1970, was awarded the title of university professor in recognition of his scholarship, teaching, and public service. In her Fuchs lecture, Professor Eagly explores the growing bipartisan consensus behind “second chance” reforms in the state and federal criminal legal systems. These incremental reforms acknowledge racial bias, correct for past …

Systemic Racism In The U.S. Immigration Laws, Kevin R. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay analyzes how aggressive activism in a California mountain town at the tail end of the nineteenth century commenced a chain reaction resulting in state and ultimately national anti-Chinese immigration laws. The constitutional immunity through which the Supreme Court upheld those laws deeply affected the future trajectory of U.S. immigration law and policy.

Responding to sustained political pressure from the West, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an infamous piece of unabashedly racist legislation that commenced a long process of barring immigration from all of Asia to the United States. In upholding the Act, the Supreme Court …

Facts Versus Discretion: The Debate Over Immigration Adjudication, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her first majority-led immigration opinion in Patel v. Garland (2022). As background, some immigrants looking to avoid deportation may apply for what is called “discretionary relief’ (e.g., asylum or adjustment of status) initially in an immigration court and then, if they lose, at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These immigration forums fall under the Department of Justice. Prior to Patel, immigrants who lost at the BIA could then ask a federal circuit court to review the factual findings of their case. Now, after Justice Barrett’s decision, Article III review is no longer available …

Abdication Through Enforcement, Shalini Ray

Indiana Law Journal

Presidential abdication in immigration law has long been synonymous with the perceived nonenforcement of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama’s never-implemented policy of deferred action, known as DAPA, serves as the prime example in the literature. But can the President abdicate the duty of faithful execution in immigration law by enforcing the law, i.e., by deporting deportable noncitizens? This Article argues “yes.” Every leading theory of the presidency recognizes the President’s role as supervisor of the bureaucracy, an idea crystallized by several scholars. When the President fails to establish meaningful enforcement priorities, essentially making every deportable …