Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Remote Adjudication In Immigration, Ingrid V. Eagly
Remote Adjudication In Immigration, Ingrid V. Eagly
Northwestern University Law Review
This Article reports the findings of the first empirical study of the use of televideo technology to remotely adjudicate the immigration cases of litigants held in detention centers in the United States. Comparing the outcomes of televideo and in-person cases in federal immigration courts, it reveals an outcome paradox: detained televideo litigants were more likely than detained in-person litigants to be deported, but judges did not deny respondents’ claims in televideo cases at higher rates. Instead, these inferior results were associated with the fact that detained litigants assigned to televideo courtrooms exhibited depressed engagement with the adversarial process—they were less …
Marriage-Based Immigration For Same-Sex Couples After Doma: Lingering Problems Of Proof And Prejudice, Anna Carron
Marriage-Based Immigration For Same-Sex Couples After Doma: Lingering Problems Of Proof And Prejudice, Anna Carron
Northwestern University Law Review
In 2013, the Supreme Court changed the lives of thousands of same-sex couples in America by declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. This decision allowed same-sex spouses to receive the same marriage-based immigration benefits under federal law that “traditional marriages” had long received. Although this holding is a victory for binational same-sex couples, bias still exists in the practices U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) uses to evaluate the legitimacy of marriages. This bias manifests itself in the proof USCIS requires to show a relationship is bona fide, proof that often assumes …
What's At Stake?: Bluman V. Federal Election Commission And The Incompatibility Of The Stake-Based Immigration Plenary Power And Freedom Of Speech, Alyssa Markenson
What's At Stake?: Bluman V. Federal Election Commission And The Incompatibility Of The Stake-Based Immigration Plenary Power And Freedom Of Speech, Alyssa Markenson
Northwestern University Law Review
Section 441e of the U.S. Code prohibits “foreign nationals”—all noncitizens except lawful permanent residents—from making any contribution or expenditure in any federal, state, or local election. In Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three-judge district court’s decision to uphold the law based on the government’s compelling interest in preventing foreign influence over U.S. elections. Notably, Bluman’s holding was animated by its reasoning that the extent of First Amendment protection should be directly tied to the aliens’ stake in American society—a reflection of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence since the middle of the twentieth century that seeks …