Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (3)
- Courts (3)
- Criminal Law (3)
- Criminal Procedure (3)
- Immigration Law (2)
-
- Law and Psychology (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Other Law (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz
Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma E. Marouf
Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma E. Marouf
Fatma E Marouf
This Article challenges the constitutionality of indiscriminately restraining civil immigration detainees during removal proceedings. Not only are immigration detainees routinely placed in handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains without any individualized determination of the need for restraints, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prosecuting party, makes the decisions about the use of restraints, rather than the judge. After examining the rationale for the well-established prohibition against the indiscriminate use of restraints during criminal and civil jury trials, and discussing how some courts have extended this rationale to bench trials, this Article contends that ICE’s practice violates substantive and procedural …
Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma Marouf
Immigrants Unshackled: The Unconstitutional Use Of Indiscriminate Restraints, Fatma Marouf
Fatma Marouf
Resolving The Alj Quandary, Kent Barnett
Resolving The Alj Quandary, Kent Barnett
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
Three competing constitutional and practical concerns surround federal administrative law judges (“ALJs”), who preside over all formal adjudications within the executive branch. First, if ALJs are “inferior Officers” (not mere employees), as five current Supreme Court Justices have suggested, the current method of selecting many ALJs likely violates the Appointments Clause. Second, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reserved the question whether the statutory protections that prevent ALJs from being fired at will impermissibly impinge upon the President’s supervisory power under Article II. Third, these same protections from removal may, on the other hand, be too limited to satisfy impartiality …