Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh
Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh
Georgia Law Review
Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …
Discrimination, Trump V. Hawaii, And Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christopher C. Lund
Discrimination, Trump V. Hawaii, And Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christopher C. Lund
Georgia Law Review
This short symposium piece is a comment on two of the Supreme Court’s recent religion cases. The first is Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, where the Court rejected the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.1 The second is Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case about the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, where the Court accepted the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against a conservative Christian.2 One case finds discrimination, while the other rejects it. Yet more fundamentally, the pairing suggests differences in how we perceive or react to evidence of discrimination. Both on …
Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan
Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan
Georgia Law Review
The Supreme Court has long deprived immigrants of the full protection of substantive constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, leaving undocumented immigrants exposed to detention and deportation if they earn the government’s ire through political speech. The best remedy for this would be for the Supreme Court to reconsider its approach. This Essay offers an interim alternative borrowed from an analogous problem that arises under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed in a removal proceeding only if the Fourth Amendment violation was “egregious.” Yet, some circuit …
The Contested "Bright Line" Of Territorial Presence, Shalini Ray
The Contested "Bright Line" Of Territorial Presence, Shalini Ray
Georgia Law Review
For this symposium on “Immigrants and the First Amendment,” this Essay considers the current scope of First Amendment protection for noncitizens abroad. Courts have interpreted the constitutional rights of noncitizens to vary with factors including status, ties, and location. But in a recent case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment simply does not apply to noncitizens abroad. This Essay considers this new rule and its implications, concluding that a bright-line rule based on territorial presence masks more complex questions about the meaning of “here” and “abroad.”
State Of The Unions: The Impact Of Janus On Public University Student Fees, Jonathan Kaufman
State Of The Unions: The Impact Of Janus On Public University Student Fees, Jonathan Kaufman
Georgia Law Review
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled forty-one years of precedent
that had allowed public-sector unions to collect
agency-shop fees from nonmembers. The Court ruled this
mandatory fee collection unconstitutional as a violation
of nonmember First Amendment rights. This decision
may pose problems for other public entities, such as
public universities, who also collect mandatory fees that
support political speech.