Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Judging Immigration Equity: Deportation And Proportionality In The Supreme Court, Jason A. Cade Jan 2017

Judging Immigration Equity: Deportation And Proportionality In The Supreme Court, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

Though it has not directly said so, the United States Supreme Court cares about proportionality in the deportation system. Or at least it thinks someone in the system should be considering the justifiability of removal decisions. As this Article demonstrates, the Court’s jurisprudence across a range of substantive and procedural challenges over the last fifteen years increases or preserves structural opportunities for equitable balancing at multiple levels in the deportation process. Notably, the Court has endorsed decision makers’ consideration of the normative justifiability of deportation even where noncitizens have a criminal history or lack a formal path to lawful status. …


Enforcing Immigration Equity, Jason A. Cade Nov 2015

Enforcing Immigration Equity, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

Congressional amendments to the immigration code in the 1990s significantly broadened grounds for removal while nearly eradicating opportunities for discretionary relief. The result has been a radical transformation of immigration law. In particular, the constriction of equitable discretion as an adjudicative tool has vested a new and critical responsibility in enforcement officials to implement rigid immigration rules in a normatively defensible way, primarily through the use of prosecutorial discretion. This Article contextualizes recent executive enforcement actions within this scheme and argues that the Obama Administration’s targeted use of limited enforcement resources and implementation of initiatives such as Deferred Action for …


Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, And Coercion, Through A Perspective Of Jewish Law And Legal Theory, Samuel J. Levine Jan 2011

Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, And Coercion, Through A Perspective Of Jewish Law And Legal Theory, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Measure 37 And A Spoonful Of Kelo: A Recipe For Property Rights Activists At The Ballot Box, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine Jan 2006

Measure 37 And A Spoonful Of Kelo: A Recipe For Property Rights Activists At The Ballot Box, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Note, A Woman’S Life, A Woman’S Health: Equalizing Medicaid Abortion Funding In Simat Corp. V. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Sara Gordon Jan 2003

Note, A Woman’S Life, A Woman’S Health: Equalizing Medicaid Abortion Funding In Simat Corp. V. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

This casenote discusses the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Container System. In a decision deviating from those of the United States Supreme Court, the Arizona Supreme Court declared the Arizona statute and accompanying Arizona Heath Care Cost Containment System provisions unconstitutional because they did not survive strict scrutiny analysis under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Arizona Constitution. Where the state of Arizona has undertaken to fund abortions for indigent women whose lives are directly threatened by pregnancy, it cannot refuse to pay for abortions for similarly indigent women whose health, …


Note, Maynard V. Cartwright: Channeling Arizona's Use Of The Heinous, Cruel Or Depraved Aggravating Circumstance To Impose The Death Penalty, Terrill Pollman Jan 1990

Note, Maynard V. Cartwright: Channeling Arizona's Use Of The Heinous, Cruel Or Depraved Aggravating Circumstance To Impose The Death Penalty, Terrill Pollman

Scholarly Works

“Death is qualitatively different from other punishments that can be imposed by the state.” Recognition of this disturbing conclusion led to the heightened scrutiny demonstrated in a series of United States Supreme Court rulings beginning with Furman v. Georgia, which set forth the constitutionally acceptable range of discretion that a judge or jury may use in imposing the death penalty. States have attempted to bring their statutes within the Furman v. Georgia range by articulating aggravating circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. One controversial circumstance that many states employ permits a capital sentence where the offense …