Law Commons^™

Lethal Immigration Enforcement, Abel Rodríguez

Faculty Publications

Increasingly, U.S. immigration law and policy perpetuate death. As more people become displaced globally, death provides a measurable indicator of the level of racialized violence inflicted on migrants of color. Because of Clinton-era policies continued today, deaths at the border have reached unprecedented rates, with more than two migrant deaths per day. A record 853 border crossers died last year, and the deadliest known transporting incident took place in June 2022, with fifty-one lives lost. In addition, widespread neglect continues to cause loss of life in immigration detention, immigration enforcement agents kill migrants with virtual impunity, and immigration law ensures …

The Third Annual Women In Law Leadership Lecture: A Fireside Chat Featuring Amy Barasch, Esq., Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

The Immigrant Struggle For Effective Counsel: An Empirical Assessment, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either.

One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. …

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 04-2021, Michael M. Bowden, Barry Bridges, Political Roundtable

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

A 6-3 Supreme Court Could Allow The Government To Openly Discriminate In Its Policies, Katherine A. Shaw, Leah Litman

Faculty Online Publications

Over the past few days, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to hot-button Trump administration policies involving the border wall, an attempt to exclude noncitizens from the census breakdown used for allocating seats in Congress and limits on who can apply for asylum from Mexico.

Supreme Court Stays Asylum Injunction: Signal On The Merits Or Procedural Snag?, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Reinforces Mandatory Detention Of Immigrants, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Asylum Ban Litigation: Supreme Court Declines To Stay Injunction, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

At Oral Argument, Supreme Court Weighs Immigrant Detention, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: A Mentor And A Friend 2-21-2018, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Travel Ban Update: Fourth Circuit Affirms Injunction As Supreme Court Awaits Argument, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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 …

Travel Ban Update: Without Addressing The Merits, The Supreme Court Stays Injunction Pending Further Proceedings, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sessions V. Dimaya: Vagueness Doctrine & Deportation Statutes, Matthew Gibbons

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Sessions v. Dimaya seeks to determine whether the residual clause of a criminal provision, incorporated by reference into a civil immigration law, is void for vagueness. Although there is an instance of the Supreme Court applying the criminal vagueness standard to an immigration statute resulting in deportation, the United States argues that immigration law is not subject to that vagueness standard because it is civil and not criminal. This commentary argues that Sessions v. Dimaya presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to conform with its precedents, further the principles underlying vagueness doctrine, and appear to apply judicial rules consistently. …

A Less Corrupt Term: 2016–2017 Supreme Court Roundup, Marc O. Degirolami, Kevin C. Walsh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In these unusually turbulent times for the presidency and Congress, the Supreme Court’s latest term stands out for its lack of drama. There were no 5–4 end-of-the-term cases that mesmerized the nation. There were no blockbuster decisions.

Even so, the Court was hardly immune to the steady transformation of our governing institutions into reality TV shows. Over the weekend leading into the final day of the term, speculation ignited from who-knows-where about the possible departure of its main character, Justice Anthony Kennedy. To us, the chatter seemed forced—as if the viewing public needed something to fill the vacuum left …

Refugee Eo: Hawaii’S Response To The Government’S Request For A Stay, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Implementing The Refugee Eo: The State Department Should Consider Refugee Agency Assurances As Bona Fide Relationships, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Travel Ban In The Supreme Court: Crafting A Workable Remedy, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Flight Risk Or Danger To The Community? Rodriguez And The Protection Of Civil Liberties In The U.S. Immigration System, Charlie Kazemzadeh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Upon arrival to the United States, foreign nationals are required to prove beyond a doubt that they comply with the various requirements for admission into the country. For those who fail to meet this standard, there are only two options: accept immediate removal to their country of origin, or fight removal. For many who contest their deportation, their fate is civil incarceration until their case is adjudicated, which can take several years. The case of Jennings v. Rodriguez addresses the constitutionality of prolonged civil incarceration without the access of mandatory, periodic bond hearings for these individuals.

Newsroom: Order Violates Roger Williams' Principles 01-30-2017, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Aftermath Of United States V. Texas, Shoba S. Wadhia

Journal Articles

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling in the immigration case of United States v. Texas, blocking two “deferred action” programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014: extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Plus) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Residents (DAPA). The 4-4 ruling by the justices creates a non-precedential non-decision, upholding an injunction placed by a panel of federal judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the future of these programs remains uncertain in the long term, the immediate effects are pronounced, as millions of …

Executive Power And The Scotus Argument On President Obama’S Immigration Plan, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Immigration As Invasion: Sovereignty, Security, And The Origins Of The Federal Immigration Power, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a new interpretation of the modern federal immigration power. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court and Congress fundamentally transformed the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration, from a species of commercial regulation firmly grounded in Congress’ commerce authority, into a power that was unmoored from the Constitution, derived from the nation’s “inherent sovereignty,” and subject to extraordinary judicial deference. This framework, which is commonly referred to as the “plenary power doctrine,” has stood for more than a century as an anomaly within American public law. The principal legal and rhetorical rationale for the …

The United States Supreme Court And The Protection Of Refugees, Lung-Chu Chen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.