Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Immigrants (2)
- Judicial review (2)
- Substantial burdens (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Asian Americans (1)
-
- Culture (1)
- Deportations (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Freedom of religion (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Habeas review (1)
- History (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Land use (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Legislative interpretation (1)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Native Americans (1)
- Ninth Circuit (1)
- Noncitizens (1)
- Oregon v. Smith (1)
- Padilla v. Kentucky (1)
- Plea bargains (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1)
- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (1)
- Religious exercise (1)
- Removal proceedings (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
To Plea Or Not To Plea: Retroactive Availability Of Padilla V. Kentucky To Noncitizen Defendants On State Postconviction Review, Jaclyn Kelley
To Plea Or Not To Plea: Retroactive Availability Of Padilla V. Kentucky To Noncitizen Defendants On State Postconviction Review, Jaclyn Kelley
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
The United States incarcerates hundreds of thousands of noncitizen criminal defendants each year. In 2010, there were about 55,000 "criminal aliens" in federal prisons, accounting for approximately 25 percent of all federal prisoners. In 2009, there were about 296,000 noncitizens in state and local jails. Like Jose, these defendants usually do not know that their convictions may make them automatically deportable under the INA. Under the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense attorneys have an affirmative duty to give specific, accurate advice to noncitizen clients regarding the deportation risk of potential pleas. This rule helps assure …
Rluipa: What's The Use, Jason Z. Pesick
Rluipa: What's The Use, Jason Z. Pesick
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
After Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which protects religious land use, many observers feared that the legislation would allow religious organizations to flout land-use regulations. Because RLUIPA defines "religious exercise" broadly, these observers feared the law would protect an array of nonworship uses, including commercial ventures, as long as a religious entity owned the land. More than a decade after RLUIPA's passage, this Note concludes that courts have not interpreted religious exercise as broadly as those observers feared. Courts have not, however, settled on a clear or consistent way of interpreting religious …
Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine
Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Protection of "sacred sites" is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and therefore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one's ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general …
Yick Wo At 125: Four Simple Lessons For The Contemporary Supreme Court, Marie A. Failinger
Yick Wo At 125: Four Simple Lessons For The Contemporary Supreme Court, Marie A. Failinger
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
The 125th anniversary of Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an important opportunity to recognize the pervasive role of law in oppressive treatment of Chinese immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is also a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to reflect on four important lessons gleaned from Yick Wo. First, the Court should never lend justification to the evil of class discrimination, even if it has to decline to rule in a case. Second, where there is persistent discrimination against a minority group, the Court must be similarly persistent in fighting it. Third, the Court needs to take …