Law Commons^™

A Vicious Cycle: United States’ Failure To Protect Immigrant Women’S Reproductive Rights At The Irwin County Detention Center, Lizet Palomera Torres

Golden Gate University Law Review

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) detained Jane Doe #15, an immigrant woman, at the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) in Georgia. During Jane’s time at ICDC, Doctor Mahendra Amin hastily examined her because she was experiencing severe pain in her pelvic area. Abandoning established professional and legal protocols for diagnosis and treatment, the medical staff scheduled Jane for surgery. Jane did not know what to expect from the surgery or what the medical personnel would do. After the surgery, the staff at ICDC neglected Jane’s care. She could not get out of bed on her own; …

The U.S. Government Taking Under Eminent Domain: When Just Compensation Is Unjust (Comment), Michael Perez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

The true effects of private takings do not occur in a vacuum and are not solely academic in nature. The consequence of losing property implicates loss of income, loss of value in residual property, and loss of familial land. The importance of protecting the rights of individual land-owners becomes increasingly apparent when analyzing the effect of the taking.

This comment will explore how the government’s taking of private property occurs—including how the government has loosened restrictions and procedural hurdles. The analysis will focus specifically on processes, policies, and statutes, created and used by the federal government to facilitate takings necessary …

Protecting American Blood From "Alien Contamination": Should Strict Scrutiny Apply To The Racist Roots Of 8 U.S.C. § 1326? United States V. Carrillo-Lopez, 555 F. Supp. 3d 996 (D. Nev. 2021), Brenda Pfahnl

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Asylum Makeover: Chevron Deference, The Self-Referral And Review Authority, Jessica Senat

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Finality Of A Conviction: A Noncitizen's Right To Procedural Due Process, Daniela Mondragon

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Discretion Or Discrimination: Whether The Equal Protection Clause Of The Fifth Amendment Requires Fathers And Mothers To Be Treated Equally In Satisfying The Physical Presence And Legitimization Clause Of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409, Jossity Vasquez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizenship, Aliengage, And Ethnic Origin Discrimination In Employment Under The Law Of The United States, Mack A. Player

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Montes-Lopez V. Holder: Applying Eldridge To Ensure A Per Se Right To Counsel For Indigent Immigrants In Removal Proceedings, Soulmaz Taghavi

Soulmaz Taghavi

Part I of this Comment reviews the historical and current state of procedural due process and its role in Immigration Law, specifically removal proceedings. Part II extends certain legal arguments in the opinion of Montes-Lopez v. Holder, which held among divided federal Circuit Courts that an immigrant in removal proceedings has a statutory and constitutional right to appointed counsel. Last, Part III demonstrates how a non-citizen in deportation hearing has a per se right to counsel outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and brought to life by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

The Extraterritorial Application Of The Fifth Amendment: A Need For Expanded Constitutional Protections., Guinevere E. Moore, Robert T. Moore

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since 2010, there have been forty-three cases—and ten deaths—involving the use of deadly force by United States agents against Mexican nationals along the border. Currently, the official policy is that officers may still use deadly force where they “reasonably believe”—based upon the totality of the circumstances—that they are in “imminent danger” of death or serious injury. Officers were found reasonable in using deadly force in situations as mundane as young boys throwing rocks. In light of these actions, the Mexican government has raised serious concerns about the disproportionate use of force by United States agents. The question now raised is …

Clark V. Martinez: Striking A Balance Between United States Security And Due Process Rights Of Illegal Immigrants, Michelle Mitsuye Shimasaki

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …

Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …

Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …

Securing One's Fourth Amendment Rights Through Issue Preclusion: Assessing Texas's Application Of Collateral Estoppel To Multiple Suppression Motions Filed In Separate Courts., Garrett T. Reece

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment will assess the split in Texas courts over the issue of collateral estoppel’s application in different motion to suppress hearings. By placing collateral estoppel within the confines of the Double Jeopardy Clause, federal law essentially extinguished one form of collateral estoppel and invented another form of the doctrine. Remnants of both forms are still alive, however, and Texas is one state in which both forms of collateral estoppel may be invoked in a criminal proceeding. Part II provides a historical analysis of the exclusionary rule, Double Jeopardy Clause, and collateral estoppel’s rise in criminal court. Part III addresses …

Iolta In The Balance: The Battle Of Legality And Morality Between Robin Hood And The Miser Recent Development., Katherine L. Smith

St. Mary's Law Journal

Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) programs recently survived a constitutional challenge. IOLTA programs require interest earned from trust accounts deposited with client money to fund legal services for the poor. Many states, including Texas, maintain a mandatory IOLTA program, requiring all lawyers who handle client funds to participate. Proponents of IOLTA argue it benefits civil justice. Opponents argue it is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held IOLTA accounts to be an unconstitutional taking of client property. The Ninth Circuit, however, found IOLTA accounts constitutional, holding that IOLTA accounts are not a taking …

In Re V.L.K. V. Troxel: Is The Best Interest Standard In A Motion To Modify The Sole Managing Conservator Subject To A Due Process Or Course Challenge., David F. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas Family Code section 156.101 is unconstitutional. In In re V.L.K, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature removed the injurious retention element from section 156.101 and no longer required a finding that the natural parent be injurious to the welfare of the child. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling is contradictory to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Troxel v. Granville. In Troxel, the Supreme Court struck down a state statute that effectively permitted any third party to file a motion to challenge custody. Under Texas law, any affected party, not limited to parties named in the …

Sentenced To Purgatory: The Indefinite Detention Of Mariel Cubans, Yvette M. Mastin

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Indefinite detention of Cuban immigrants is unconstitutional. Immigrants detained in American jails are being treated the same as individuals serving criminal sentences or awaiting disposition of their cases. Congress should, therefore, create a mandatory and uniform system of procedural due process. The system should be modeled after the procedural due process system established by the Kansas Legislature in the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act of 1994.  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the indefinite detention of the Mariel Cubans, lower courts have held that the indefinite detention of Mariel Cubans does not violate the Constitution. Nonetheless, …

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives And Effective Representation In Capital Cases Essay., Jeffrey J. Pokorak

St. Mary's Law Journal

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses …

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

The Supreme Court Takes A Weapon From The Drug War Arsenal: New Defenses To Civil Drug Forfeiture., Scott Alexander Nelson

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment discusses the history and development of forfeiture law—emphasizing the misnomer of “guilty property”—and addresses the lack of constitutional safeguards in the civil forfeiture statutes. It outlines prospective constitutional defenses announced by the United States Supreme Court, emphasizing the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and the “innocent owner” defense. The federal statute authorizing civil forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. § 881 (Forfeiture Statute), was initially enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 amended the statute to impose forfeiture on real property …

Peremptory Jury Strike In Texas After Batson And Edmondson., Alan B. Rich

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court overruled that portion of Swain v. Alabama, which had imposed a “crippling burden of proof” upon a person who wished to vindicate his right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in the face of a racially motivated peremptory challenge. Under Batson, a defendant can raise an inference of discrimination and prove it using only evidence adduced at his own trial. Two fundamental questions needing resolution prior to involving the Batson procedures are: (A) who has standing to bring a Batson challenge; and (B) who must be challenged before the Batson …

Recent Decisions, Scott R. Valby, Jeffrey P. Marston, Thomas W. Baker

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Aliens--An Immigration Regulation that Distinguishes Among Aliens by National Origin Must Have a Rational Basis to Satisfy the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Fifth Amendment

Scott R. Valby

-----------------------

Antitrust--Extraterritorial Application of the Sherman Act Should Not be Curtailed at the Pre-Discovery Stage if Significant United States Interests are Involved and there are Factual Disputes Concerning the Applicability of the Act of State Doctrine

Jeffrey Paul Marston

-----------------------

Transportation--Interstate Commerce Act--ICC has Plenary and Exclusive Jurisdiction over Joint through Routes between Outlying Possessions or Territories and the United States

Thomas William Baker