Immigration Law Commons^™

Immigration Detention Meets Evidence Law: A Discussion Paper, Simon Wallace, Sean Rehaag, Benjamin Berger

All Papers

This discussion paper aims to encourage a broader engagement between the fields of evidence law and administrative law, using evidence in the Canadian immigration detention review setting as a case study. For most, the field of evidence law is essentially concerned with the rules of non-admissibility. This narrow vision of evidence law partly explains why administrative decision-making and administrative law only sporadically reaches to evidence law’s lessons—and why administrative law settings feature only infrequently in evidence law doctrine. This disconnect is regrettable because contact between the fields could be mutually enriching: evidence law has a rich tradition of thinking about …

The Emerging Lessons Of Trump V. Hawaii, Shalini Bhargava Ray

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the years since the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, federal district courts have adjudicated dozens of rights-based challenges to executive action in immigration law. Plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens, civil rights organizations, and immigrants themselves, have alleged violations of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause with some regularity based on President Trump’s animus toward immigrants. This Article assesses Hawaii’s impact on these challenges to immigration policy, and it offers two observations. First, Hawaii has amplified federal courts’ practice of privileging administrative law claims over constitutional ones. For example, courts considering …

Delegating Immigration Admission Powers To The States, Christian Vanderhooft

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Control over immigration is generally seen as a purely federal power that cannot or should not be exercised by the states. Although some scholars have challenged this assumption, their focus is almost always on the ability of states to regulate (or remove) immigrants who are already within their borders. This Article calls for states to intervene in the immigration process at a much earlier stage. It proposes delegating to the states the power to admit new immigrants into the country by giving states control over the issuance of temporary and permanent visas. States would also be able to buy excess …

Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 04-2021, Michael M. Bowden, Barry Bridges, Political Roundtable

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Relentless Pursuits: Reflections Of An Immigration And Human Rights Clinician On The Past Four Years, Sarah H. Paoletti

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Deconstructing Invisible Walls: Sotomayor's Dissents In An Era Of Immigration Exceptionalism, Karla Mckanders

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Law School News: Professor Gonzalez Is 2020 Rhode Island Lawyer Of The Year 01/11/21, Barry Bridges, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents.

An Invisible Border Wall And The Dangers Of Internal Agency Control, Jill E. Family

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Administrative law has long struggled to determine the appropriate balance between internal and external control over federal agencies. Some scholars posit that internal agency controls (those from within the executive branch) are optimal checks on agency behavior. In fact, some argue that external control (from Congress or the courts) is detrimental to agency governance. This Article presents a cautionary tale for those who discount the role of external control; it depicts a case study that poses a major challenge to those who theorize that internal agency controls are a sufficient check on agency behavior.

This case study analyzes the Trump …

Principals And Principles In Immigration Law, Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez have written a brilliant book — one of big arguments, grand scale, and historical sweep, yet also institutional detail, political acuity, and legal nuance; a book that has as much to teach us about Biden’s nascent administration as about the tenure of his immediate and more distant predecessors. As I add my voice to the chorus of praise, I want to suggest two extensions of the project.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

The Case For Chevron Deference To Immigration Adjudications, Patrick J. Glen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Chevron skepticism is in vogue in legal academia, as Professors Shoba Wadhia and Christopher Walker’s recent entry in the genre demonstrates. They place their project within the broader academic trend of arguing for limitations on the application of deference to various administrative decisions, but their aim is ultimately narrower—to show that “this case against Chevron has * * * its greatest force when it comes to immigration.”

The Professors are incorrect. Immigration adjudication presents one of the strongest cases for deference to administrative adjudication. This case is founded in the text of the statute itself and its myriad general and …

Sanctuary Cities And The Power Of The Purse: An Executive Dole Test, Douglas M. Spencer

Publications

A constitutional clash is brewing. Cities and counties are flexing their muscles to frustrate national immigration policy while the federal Executive is threatening to interfere with local law enforcement decision making and funding. Although the federal government generally has plenary authority over immigration law, the Constitution forbids the commandeering of state and local officials to enforce federal law against their will. One exception to this anti-commandeering principle is the Spending Clause of Article I that permits Congress to condition the receipt of federal funds on compliance with federal law. These conditions, according to more than 30 years of Supreme Court …

Judicial Review In Expedited Removal Proceedings: Applying Sims V. Apfel To Assess The Role Of Issue Exhaustion, Emily C. Snow

Georgia Law Review

For noncitizens in expedited removal proceedings, obtaining
judicial review of removal orders is an uphill battle. Some
barriers to judicial review are statutory: noncitizens must first
exhaust their administrative remedies, and they may seek
review only in a federal circuit court of appeals. Other barriers
are judicial—i.e., imposed by courts, not statutes.
A circuit split has emerged over one of these judicially
imposed barriers to judicial review. Some courts have held that
expedited removal proceedings do not accommodate legal
challenges to removal. In those circuits, noncitizens preserve the
opportunity for judicial review even when they do not raise a
legal …

Proposed Federal Osha Standards For Wildfire Smoke, Keenan Layton

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law

With the rise of global temperatures, climatologists predict a corresponding increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires in the Pacific Northwest. Rising temperatures are expected to create drier conditions in forests, thereby creating environmental conditions more prone to forest fires. Wildfires have become a common enough occurrence in the Pacific Northwest that summers have become synonymous with smoky conditions, but the issue is not constrained to this region. Though the Pacific Northwest has recently acted as a harbinger of increasing wildfires, environmental scientists forecast an increase in fire risk throughout the Western United States. The predicted rise in forest …

The Case Against Prosecuting Refugees, Evan J. Criddle

Northwestern University Law Review

Within the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice has pledged to prosecute asylum-seekers who enter the United States outside an official port of entry without inspection. This practice has contributed to mass incarceration and family separation at the U.S.–Mexico border, and it has prevented bona fide refugees from accessing relief in immigration court. Yet, federal judges have taken refugee prosecution in stride, assuming that refugees, like other foreign migrants, are subject to the full force of American criminal justice if they skirt domestic border controls. This assumption is gravely mistaken.

This Article shows that Congress has not authorized …

The Case Against Prosecuting Refugees, Evan J. Criddle

Faculty Publications

Within the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice has pledged to prosecute asylum-seekers who enter the United States outside an official port of entry without inspection. This practice has contributed to mass incarceration and family separation at the U.S.–Mexico border, and it has prevented bona fide refugees from accessing relief in immigration court. Yet, federal judges have taken refugee prosecution in stride, assuming that refugees, like other foreign migrants, are subject to the full force of American criminal justice if they skirt domestic border controls. This assumption is gravely mistaken.

This Article shows that Congress has not authorized …

The Weaponization Of The “Alien Harboring” Statute In A New-Era Of Racial Animus Towards Immigrants, Hannah Hamley

Seattle University Law Review

Federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), commonly referred to as the “Alien Harboring” statute, was passed sixty-eight years ago and has been used as a weapon against immigrants and their allies. Spanning back decades, numerous scholars, alarmed by the dangerous use of the statute, have written about its muddled congressional intent and the unclear definition of “harboring.” These issues continue to be relevant and are foundational concerns with the enforcement of the harboring statute. However, in the era of President Donald J. Trump, we are faced with a new danger. We are confronted with an Administration that is ferociously anti-immigrant …

Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin

Seattle University Law Review

Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Arbitrary Arbiters: Evaluating The Right To Be Informed Of Eligibility For Discretionary Relief In Removal Proceedings, Michael Jordan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Technological Triage Of Immigration Cases, Fatma Marouf, Luz E. Herrera

Faculty Scholarship

In the medical profession, triage refers to sorting medical resources in emergency situations based on the greatest need for immediate attention. Similarly, legal service providers talk about “triaging” cases to prioritize individuals with the most serious problems. But in the immigration field, the concept of triage is turned on its head. Noncitizens with the riskiest cases—those facing deportation—have the least access to legal assistance, especially if they are detained. Technology has the potential to help with triage but is not yet being used effectively to assist with deportation defense. This Article argues that utilizing technology to facilitate access to representation …

Environmental Justice In Little Village: A Case For Reforming Chicago’S Zoning Law, Charles Isaacs

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Chicago’s Little Village community bears the heavy burden of environmental injustice and racism. The residents are mostly immigrants and people of color who live with low levels of income, limited access to healthcare, and disproportionate levels of dangerous air pollution. Before its retirement, Little Village’s Crawford coal-burning power plant was the lead source of air pollution, contributing to 41 deaths, 550 emergency room visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks per year. After the plant’s retirement, community members wanted a say on the future use of the lot, only to be closed out when a corporation, Hilco Redevelopment Partners, bought the lot …

The Substantial Impact Approach: Reviewing Policy Statements In Light Of Apa Finality, Emily Parsons

Washington Law Review

Federal agencies engage in a wide range of non-binding action, issuing guidance documents such as policy statements and interpretive rules. Although these guidance documents may have a substantial impact on industries or members of the public, courts often refuse to review their substance. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agency action to be “final” before courts can review it. The D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have taken conflicting and often messy approaches in determining whether interpretive rules and policy statements are final and thus reviewable. This Comment proposes a new approach: the substantial impact approach. Under this approach—repurposed from a …

A Suspended Death Sentence: Habeas Review Of Expedited Removal Decisions, Lauren Schusterman

Michigan Law Review

Expedited removal allows low-level immigration officers to summarily order the deportation of certain noncitizens, frequently with little to no judicial oversight. Noncitizens with legitimate asylum claims should not find themselves in expedited removal. When picked up by immigration authorities, they should be referred for a credible fear interview and then for more thorough proceedings.

Although there is clear congressional intent that asylum seekers not be subjected to expedited removal, mounting evidence suggests that expedited removal fails to identify bona fide asylum seekers. Consequently, many of them are sent back to persecution. Such decisions have weighty consequences, but they have remained …

Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under The Trump Administration, Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tara Tidwell Cullen, Clara Long

United States Department of Homeland Security

In the last three years, the Trump administration has grown the immigration detention system in the United States to an unprecedented size, at times holding more than 56,000 people per day. Since 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has anchored this growth in places where immigrants are most likely to be isolated from legal counsel, remain in detention without real opportunity for release, and are more likely to lose their cases. These new detention centers also exhibit patterns of mistreatment and abuse, including medical and mental health care neglect, that have been present since the inception of ICE’s detention system …

Zealous Administration: The Deportation Bureaucracy, Geoffrey Heeren

Articles

An agency's culture shapes its lawmaking. Under certain conditions, agency culture dominates decision-making so strongly that it mutes the influence of those factors that administrative law scholars have traditionally focused on including presidential will, judicial oversight, internal resistance, and public opinion. We call this undertheorized phenomenon "zealous administration." The immigration enforcement bureaucracy has vast discretion to remove unauthorized immigrants from the United States. Current immigration policies-such as indiscriminate deportation, family separation, and harsh detention-represent the most prominent example of zealous administration in the federal government. This Article focuses on that bureaucracy to plumb the causes and effects of zealous administration …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

The Case Against Chevron Deference In Immigration Adjudication, Shoba Wadhia, Christopher Walker

Faculty Scholarship

The Duke Law Journal’s fifty-first annual administrative law symposium examines the future of Chevron deference—the command that a reviewing court defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute the agency administers. In the lead article, Professors Kristin Hickman and Aaron Nielson argue that the Supreme Court should narrow Chevron’s domain to exclude interpretations made via administrative adjudication. Building on their framing, this Article presents an in-depth case study of immigration adjudication and argues that this case against Chevron has perhaps its greatest force when it comes to immigration. That is because much of Chevron’s theory for congressional delegation …

Coordinating Injunctions, Bert I. Huang

Faculty Scholarship

Consider this scenario: Two judges with parallel cases are each ready to issue an injunction. But their injunctions may clash, ordering incompatible actions by the defendant. Each judge has written an opinion justifying her own intended relief, but the need to avoid conflicting injunctions presses her to make a further choice – “Should I issue the injunction or should I stay it for now?” Each must make this decision in anticipation of what the other will do.

This Article analyzes such a judicial coordination problem, drawing on recent examples including the DACA cases and the “sanctuary cities” cases. It then …