Law Commons^™

Invisible Adjudication In The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Michael Kagan, Rebecca Gill, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

Non-precedent decisions are the norm in federal appellate courts, and are seen by judges as a practical necessity given the size of their dockets. Yet the system has always been plagued by doubts. If only some decisions are designated to be precedents, questions arise about whether courts might be acting arbitrarily in other cases. Such doubts have been overcome in part because nominally unpublished decisions are available through standard legal research databases. This creates the appearance of transparency, mitigating concerns that courts may be acting arbitrarily. But what if this appearance is an illusion? This Article reports empirical data drawn …

Of Mice And Men: On The Seclusion Of Immigration Detainees And Hospital Patients, Stacey A. Tovino

Scholarly Works

With a special focus on federal provisions strictly regulating Medicare-participating hospitals' use of seclusion, this Article uses developments in health law as a lens through which the uses and abuses of seclusion in immigration detention centers might be assessed and through which the standards governing detention centers might be improved. In particular, this Article argues that the unenforceable standards governing seclusion in immigration detention, including the most recent version of ICE's Performance-Based National Detention Standards, were incorrectly modeled on correctional standards developed for use in jails and prisons with respect to convicted criminals. This Article asserts that correctional standards are …

Binding The Enforcers: The Administrative Law Struggle Behind Pres. Obama’S Immigration Actions, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

President Obama’s ambitious use of executive discretion in immigration – especially the DACA and DAPA programs – should be understood in context of a struggle within the executive branch between the President and frontline enforcement officers in the Department of Homeland Security who have actively resisted his policy agenda. The so far successful litigation by 26 states to partially halt these programs has focused on this struggle within the executive branch, rather than on the stalemate between the President and Congress over legislative immigration reform. In preliminary rulings, the federal district court and the Court of Appeals have interpreted ambiguous …

Limiting Deterrence: Judicial Resistance To Detention Of Asylum-Seekers In Israel And The United States, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Governments have advanced the argument that asylum-seekers may be detained in order to deter other would-­be asylum­-seekers from coming. But in recent litigation in the United States and Israel, this justification for mass detention met with significant resistance from courts. This Essay looks at the way the American and Israeli courts dealt with the proposed deterrence rationale for asylum-seeker detention. It suggests that general deterrence raises three sequential questions:

1. Is deterrence ever legitimate as a stand alone justification for depriving people of liberty?

2. If deterrence is sometimes legitimate, is it valid as a general matter in migration control, …

When Immigrants Speak: The Precarious Status Of Non-Citizen Speech Under The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The legal protection of free speech for immigrants in the United States is surprisingly limited, and it may be under more threat than is commonly understood. Although many unauthorized immigrants have become politically active in campaigning for immigration reform, their ability to speak out publicly may depend more on political discretion than on the Constitutional protections that we normally take for granted. Potential threats to immigrant free speech may be seen in three areas of law. First, a broad claim has been made by the Department of Justice that immigrants who have not been legally admitted to the country have …

Shrinking The Post-Plenary Power Problem, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Michael Kagan responds to Professor Matthew J. Lindsay's article, Disaggregating “Immigration Law.” Professor Kagan posits a majority of Supreme Court justices appear to be at least occasionally uneasy with the plenary power doctrine that has shaped immigration law since the Chinese Exclusion Case, but they are not all sure how to live without it either. He argues so long as this remains the case, the Court’s immigration jurisprudence is likely to be incrementally favorable to immigrants on the whole, but tentative, inconsistent, and incoherent in some important ways. He concludes the importance of Professor Lindsay’s intervention …

Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of G-G-S- that a noncitizen’s mental health status at the time of an offense is irrelevant to determining whether the offense is a “particularly serious crime” for immigration purposes. Since a “particularly serious crime” is a bar to asylum and withholding of removal, it can result in a noncitizen’s deportation to a country where he or she faces a serious risk of persecution. In deciding that immigration judges “are constrained by how mental health issues were addressed as part of the criminal proceedings,” the BIA failed to recognize the …

Believable Victims: Asylum Credibility And The Struggle For Objectivity, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Asylum adjudication is often the invisible frontline in the struggle by oppressed groups to gain recognition for their plights. Through this process, individual people must tell their stories and try to show that they are genuine victims of persecution rather than simply illegal immigrants attempting to slip through the system. In 2002, because the world had not yet acknowledged the nature of the calamity from which they were escaping, many Darfurian asylum cases would have relied on the ability of each individual to convince government offices to believe their stories. They would have had to be deemed “credible,” or they …

A Taxonomy Of Discretion: Refining The Legality Debate About Obama’S Executive Actions On Immigration, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Broad executive action has been the Obama Administration’s signature contribution to American immigration policy, setting off a furious debate about whether the President has acted outside his constitutional powers. But the legal debate about the scope of the President’s authority to change immigration policy has not fully recognized what is actually innovative about the Obama policies, and thus has not focused on those areas where he has taken executive discretion into uncharted territory. This essay aims to add new focus to the debate about Pres. Obama’s executive actions by defining five different types of presidential discretion: Congressionally-authorized discretion, non-enforcement discretion, …

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power!, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have re-affirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

The Unconstitutional Use Of Restraints In Removal Proceedings, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

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 …

The New Era Of Presidential Immigration Law, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

At the dawn of the Obama Administration, Professors Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez wrote: “[T]he inauguration of a new President can bring with it remarkable changes in immigration policy.” At the time they wrote that, this proposition was in some ways more a matter of advocacy than a description of reality. As we approach the election of a new president in 2016, we finally live in the world that Professors Cox and Rodríguez advocated. The election of a new President will likely carry significant immediate consequences for immigration policy. My goal in this short space will be to focus on …

Buying Time? False Assumptions About Abusive Appeals, Michael Kagan, Fatma Marouf, Rebecca Gill

Scholarly Works

The federal government has expressed fear that immigrants abuse the appellate process to delay their deportations by filing meritless petitions for review with the federal courts. Some courts have responded to these concerns by imposing stricter standards for issuing stays of removal, so that the government can more easily deport petitioners even while their appeals remain pending. The risk with this approach is that immigrants who ultimately prevail may be erroneously deported. What is often overlooked is that the potential for abuse is really a function of time, with longer appeals posing a greater threat to immigration enforcement. This study …

Justice On The Fly: The Danger Of Errant Deportations, Fatma Marouf, Michael Kagan, Rebecca Gill

Scholarly Works

The government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court had little data to inform its decision. The Court will likely need to revisit this issue, as doubts cloud the meaning of Nken’s main holdings, in part because the government misled the …

Dubious Deference: Reassessing Appellate Standards Of Review In Immigration Appeals, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The long-standing doctrine of deferential review by appellate courts of findings of fact by administrative agencies is seriously flawed for two main reasons. First, the most prominent justification for deference relies on the empirical assumption that first-instance adjudicators are best able to determine the truth because they can directly view witness demeanor. Decades of social science research has proven this assumption about the value of demeanor false. Second, in principle, the deference rule applies to all types of administrative adjudication, with no attention to the relative gravity of interests at stake in different types of cases or to the varying …

The Role Of Foreign Authorities In U.S. Asylum Adjudication, Fatma E. Marouf

Scholarly Works

U.S. asylum law is based on a domestic statute that incorporates an international treaty, the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. While Supreme Court cases indicate that the rules of treaty interpretation apply to an incorporative statute, courts analyzing the statutory asylum provisions fail to give weight to the interpretations of our sister signatories, which is one of the distinctive and uncontroversial principles of treaty interpretation. This Article highlights this significant omission and urges courts to examine the interpretations of other States Parties to the Protocol in asylum cases. Using as an example the current debate over social …

Ten Years After Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. V. Nlrb: The Power Of A Labor Law Symbol, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Regrouping America: Immigration Policies And The Reduction Of Prejudice, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The “Ethical” Surplus Of The War On Illegal Immigration, Francis J. Mootz Iii, Leticia M. Saucedo

Scholarly Works

The Aristotelian philosopher, Gene Garver, suggests that rhetorical claims have an "ethical surplus" that extends beyond the specific claim being advanced at the moment. This follows from the fact that rhetoric includes not only logos, but also pathos and ethos. We adopt the thesis of "ethical surplus," but in a negative context. The "war on illegal immigration" has generated an ethical surplus that leads its promoters beyond the specific claim of securing borders against unlawful entry. After demonstrating that there is an express rhetoric of "war" used in connection with Arizona's adoption of recent anti-immigrant legislation, we explore …

The "Illegal" Tax, Francine J. Lipman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Implicit Bias And Immigration Courts, Fatma Marouf

Scholarly Works

This Article highlights the importance of implicit bias in immigration adjudication. After tracing the evolution of prejudice in our immigration laws from explicit "old-fashioned" prejudice to more subtle forms of "modem" and "aversive" prejudice, the Article argues that the specific conditions under which immigration judges decide cases render them especially prone to the influence of implicit bias. Specifically, it examines how factors such as immigration judges' lack of independence, limited opportunity for deliberate thinking, low motivation, and the low risk of judicial review all allow implicit bias to drive decisionmaking. The Article then recommends certain reforms, both simple and complex, …

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 …

The Immigrant Rights Marches (Las Marchas): Did The “Gigante” (Giant) Wake Up Or Does It Still Sleep Tonight?, Sylvia R. Lazos

Scholarly Works

This article documents the genesis of the March 2006 immigrant rights protests and analyzes their impact. Las Marchas were truly spontaneous grassroots protests, the largest massive civil rights mobilization effort for a single event in the United States to date. This paper provides a macro- and micro-analysis of the forces that account for this success. First, the catalyst, HR 4437, a bill that was successfully approved by the House of Representatives would have criminalized illegal presence. This law was perceived as unjust, and engendered a debate around immigrant rights debate in terms with universal and simple appeal, human dignity, the …

Emerging Latina/O Nation And Anti- Immigrant Backlash, Sylvia R. Lazos

Scholarly Works

This foreword is an introduction to the LatCrit XI, Working and Living in the Global Playground: Frontstage and Backstage symposium, convened at William S. Boyd School of Law, in Las Vegas Nevada, during October 2006 and called upon over 150 academics to focus on the impacts of globalization and immigration. At no time has LatCrit's critical approach of interconnecting the structures of inequality, the market forces of globalization, and the cultural hostility towards outsider groups been more relevant.

Backlash against immigrants, particularly Latina/o “illegals,” is on the rise. This Introduction seeks to outline the challenges that the current immigration quandary …

Race And The California Recall Election: A Top Ten List Of Ironies, Sylvia R. Lazos, Keith Aoki, Steven Bender

Scholarly Works

Arnold Schwarzenegger's election as governor of California in the 2003 recall campaign is rife with cruel ironies. An immigrant himself, he beat the grandson of Mexican immigrants, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, by playing the race card, and managed to dodge allegations of his praise for Hitler as a strong leader. While the pundits say that the California recall was about angry voters lashing back at faithless, self-dealing politicians, more lurks beneath the surface. In California, racial and ethnic minorities now comprise a majority of the population, and the recall election brought barely concealed and seething schisms to the surface. Californians, …

Critical Race Theory And Proposition 187: The Racial Politics Of Immigration Law, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

Immigration law and politics have been historically intertwined with racial prejudice. Many of those who have called for immigration restrictions have also sought an end to the racial and cultural diversity brought by immigrants. With the end of legally sanctioned race discrimination in the 1960s, immigration rhetoric has lost some of its overt racist overtones. However, in the 1990s, many politicians and lawmakers have emphasized the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigration. This change begs a central question: Have the racist motivations of past immigration law and policy been completely displaced by a concern for law and order? This Comment …