Digital Commons Network^™

Universal Representation, Lindsay Nash

Articles

In an era in which there is little good news for immigrant communities and even holding the line has become an ambitious goal, one progressive project has continued to gain steam: the movement to provide universal representation for non-citizens in removal proceedings. In the immigration field, “universal representation” refers to a system of appointed counsel that provides representation to indigent non-citizens facing deportation regardless of the apparent merits of their case. This model has proven a transformative change, particularly given the absence of any recognized right to government-funded counsel. In recent years, cities and counties throughout the nation have launched …

Unpacking Doj’S New Claim That Dhs Can Legally Detain Migrant Children With Their Parents For Longer Than Twenty Days, Deborah Pearlstein, Marty Lederman, Ryan Goodman

Online Publications

The Trump administration recently claimed it could not reunite migrant children with parents who are being held in ICE detention due to a court order requiring the government to release such children from custody within (at most) 20 days. The government now claims, however, that it can legally detain the children with their parents in ICE detention for much longer than 20 days. How did the government come to this position? In this post we’ll answer that question, and address a central flaw in the government’s logic.

Child Separation In The Courts, Deborah Pearlstein

Online Publications

Developments in the ongoing child separation crisis have come so quickly in the past week it is nearly impossible even for experts to keep track. Donald Trump’s executive order requiring an end to the child separation policy, his administration’s subsequent announcement that it would halt its “zero-tolerance” policy of prosecuting the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry, the California federal court’s Tuesday decision halting further separation and requiring currently separated families be reunified — all of these are positive developments for those concerned about the catastrophic effects of the policy on children and families. But the legal battle here is far …

“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Federal district courts are routinely issuing broad injunctions prohibiting the federal government from enforcing constitutionally invalid laws, regulations, and policies on immigration and immigration-adjacent issues. Styled “nationwide injunctions,” they prohibit enforcement of the challenges laws not only against the named plaintiffs, but against all people and entities everywhere.

The first problem with these injunctions is one of nomenclature. “Nationwide” suggests something about the “where” of the injunction, the geographic scope in which it protects. The better term is “universal injunction,” which captures the real controversy over the “who” of the injunction, as courts purport to protect the universe of all …

The School To Deportation Pipeline, Laila L. Hlass

Georgia State University Law Review

The United States immigration regime has a long and sordid history of explicit racism, including limiting citizenship to free whites, excluding Chinese immigrants, deporting massive numbers of Mexican immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry, and implementing a national quotas system preferencing Western Europeans. More subtle bias has seeped into the system through the convergence of the criminal and immigration law regimes.

Immigration enforcement has seen a rise in mass immigrant detention and deportation, bolstered by provocative language casting immigrants as undeserving undesirables: criminals, gang members, and terrorists. Immigrant children, particularly black and Latino boys, are increasingly finding themselves in …

Chance To Change: Jennings V. Rodriguez As A Chance To Bring Due Process To A Broken Detention System, Joe Bianco

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention was arbitrary without a showing by the Government of why the noncitizen needed continued detention. The Government seeks to retain the current system, where the noncitizen’s detention release is entirely at the Government’s discretion. This commentary sets out the case and argues that the better route is …

“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

Federal district courts are routinely issuing broad injunctions prohibiting the federal government from enforcing constitutionally invalid laws, regulations, and policies on immigration and immigration-adjacent issues. Styled “nationwide injunctions,” they prohibit enforcement of the challenges laws not only against the named plaintiffs, but against all people and entities everywhere.

The first problem with these injunctions is one of nomenclature. “Nationwide” suggests something about the “where” of the injunction, the geographic scope in which it protects. The better term is “universal injunction,” which captures the real controversy over the “who” of the injunction, as courts purport to protect the universe of all …

Action And Reaction: The Trump Executive Orders And Their Reception By The Federal Courts, Anthony S. Winer

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lee V. United States: The Unusual Circumstances Test For Strickland Relief, Zachary Segal

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Undocumented Citizens Of The United States: The Repercussions Of Denying Birth Certificates, Anna L. Lichtenberger

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming