Immigration Law Commons^™

Systemic Racism In The U.S. Immigration Laws, Kevin R. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay analyzes how aggressive activism in a California mountain town at the tail end of the nineteenth century commenced a chain reaction resulting in state and ultimately national anti-Chinese immigration laws. The constitutional immunity through which the Supreme Court upheld those laws deeply affected the future trajectory of U.S. immigration law and policy.

Responding to sustained political pressure from the West, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an infamous piece of unabashedly racist legislation that commenced a long process of barring immigration from all of Asia to the United States. In upholding the Act, the Supreme Court …

The Suspension Clause After Department Of Homeland Security V. Thuraissigiam, Jonathan Hafetz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In June 2020, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a constitutional challenge to Congress’s decision to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over legal challenges to expedited removal orders by noncitizens in federal detention.

In Thuraissigiam, U.S. border patrol stopped the petitioner, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, shortly after he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection or an entry document. The petitioner asserted that he was fleeing persecution in his home country and sought asylum in the United States. The asylum officer concluded that Thuraissigiam had …

Renewing The Vagueness Challenge To Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Melissa London

Washington Law Review

Noncitizens who have been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) can be deported. However, the INA fails to provide a definition for “moral turpitude” or a list of crimes that necessarily involve “moral turpitude.” As a result, judges are given wide discretion to decide when a crime is morally reprehensible enough to render a noncitizen deportable. This moral determination in the CIMT analysis has led to disparate results among the lower courts, which deprives noncitizens of meaningful notice of what conduct could render them deportable. In 1951, the Supreme Court held …

Heirs Of An Administration: Unlawful Executive Actions, Jerome Perez

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States in DHS v. Regents on June 18, 2020, decided to stall the Trump administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy that the Obama administration created contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)––even though in 2016 the Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy, which mirrors DACA. This blunder offhandedly sacrifices the Supreme Court’s reputation as nonpartisan by enlisting itself as the future arbiter of administrative issues with self-evident resolutions and deciding contrary to those resolutions to endorse a political agenda. …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Foreword, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Foreward

The Immigrant Struggle For Effective Counsel: An Empirical Assessment, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), a statutory provision placing restrictions on certain noncitizens from seeking habeas review in the federal judiciary. The Court focused on the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, but it also discussed the Due Process Clause, declaring that there was no violation there either.

One question which flows from this decision is whether the federal courts will soon be precluded from hearing other types of claims brought by noncitizens. Consider ineffective assistance of counsel petitions, which in the immigration law context are rooted in the Due Process Clause. …

Facts Versus Discretion: The Debate Over Immigration Adjudication, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently issued her first majority-led immigration opinion in Patel v. Garland (2022). As background, some immigrants looking to avoid deportation may apply for what is called “discretionary relief’ (e.g., asylum or adjustment of status) initially in an immigration court and then, if they lose, at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These immigration forums fall under the Department of Justice. Prior to Patel, immigrants who lost at the BIA could then ask a federal circuit court to review the factual findings of their case. Now, after Justice Barrett’s decision, Article III review is no longer available …

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

When Interpretive Communities Clash On Immigration Law: The Courts’ Mediating Role In Noncitizens’ Rights And Remedies, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Interpretive Communities Clash On Immigration Law: The Courts’ Mediating Role In Noncitizens’ Rights And Remedies, Peter Margulies

Touro Law Review

Immigration law gains clarity through the lens of Robert Cover's compelling work on law as a "system of meaning." Cover's vision inspires us to consider immigration law as a contest between two interpretive communities: acolytes of the protective approach, which sees law as a haven for noncitizens fleeing harm in their home countries, and followers of the regulatory approach, which stresses sovereignty and strict adherence to legal categories. Immigration law's contest between contending camps need not be a zero-sum game. As Cover and Alex Aleinikoff observed in their classic article on habeas corpus, a legal remedy can also be a …

Hernández V. Mesa: A Case For A More Meaningful Partnership With The Inter-American Commission On Human Rights, Peyton Jacobsen

Seattle University Law Review

Through an in-depth examination of Hernández, the Inter-American Human Rights System, and the success of Mexico’s partnership with said system, this Note will make a case for embracing human rights bodies— specifically, the Inter-American System on Human Rights—as an appropriate and necessary check on the structures that form the United States government. Part I will look closely at the reasoning and judicially created doctrine that guided the decision in Hernández, with the goal of providing a better understanding of the complicated path through the courts that led to a seemingly straightforward yet unsatisfying result. Part II will illustrate the scope …

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 …

Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms

Brooklyn Law Review

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) abrogates sovereign immunity in certain circumstances to allow private individuals, regardless of citizenship, to sue the United States for specific torts committed by government officials. Yet when two lawful permanent residents—located in different parts of the country—separately tried to sue the government for wrongful removal, one court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while the other court did not. These decisions, though reaching opposite conclusions, both relied on federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in order to determine whether judicial review of immigrants’ removal orders is precluded. This note argues …

Do Courts Have Jurisdiction To Consider Questions Of Fact To Determine Whether A Noncitizen Is Entitled To Eligibility For Discretionary Relief From Removal?, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article previews Patel v. Garland, a United States Supreme Court case addressing the scope of federal court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as amended by the REAL ID Act. The central question is whether federal courts retain jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary factual determinations underlying eligibility for discretionary relief from removal, or whether the statute’s bar on reviewing “any judgment” precludes judicial review of such threshold findings. The case arises from the denial of adjustment of status to Pankajkumar Patel, deemed inadmissible for allegedly falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen on a driver’s license application. Both petitioner …

What An Ethics Of Discourse And Recognition Can Contribute To A Critical Theory Of Refugee Claim Adjudication: Reclaiming Epistemic Justice For Gender-Based Asylum Seekers, David Ingram

Philosophy: Faculty Publications and Other Works

Abstract: Using examples drawn from gender-based asylum cases, this chapter examines how far recognition theory (RT) and discourse theory (DT) can guide social criticism of the judicial processing of women’s applications for protection under the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) and subsequent protocols and guidelines put forward by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I argue that these theories can guide social criticism only when combined with other ethical approaches. In addition to humanitarian and human rights law, these theories must rely upon ideas drawn from distributive, compensatory, and epistemic justice. Drawing from recent …

Abandoning The Subjective And Objective Components Of A Well-Founded Fear Of Persecution, Grace Kim

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Current asylum law requires that asylum seekers prove that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution.” However, a “well-founded fear”—the evidentiary standard in asylum cases—has remained ambiguous and difficult to apply in asylum cases. In Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court held that an asylum seeker can establish a well-founded fear with less than a 50% probability of future persecution. Although the Supreme Court sought to clarify the meaning of a well-founded fear, the decision has complicated the evidentiary standard by implying that it consists of two parts: the subjective component and objective component. The “subjective” component—the asylum seekers’ subjective fear …

If Not Now, When? Finding Jurisdiction To Review Immigration Enforcement Action In The Trump Era, Elizabeth L. Jackson

Et Cetera

The Trump Presidency left an indelible mark on the U.S. immigration system. From extreme enforcement practices to unconstitutional policies, the vast power of the executive branch and the underutilized strength of the judicial branch was thrust into a harsh light. The failure of lower courts to adequately understand and apply the narrow construction of jurisdiction-limiting statutes created unjust and absurd results on a number of issues, from the targeting of immigration activists for enforcement actions to the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols. The consistent application of Supreme Court precedent allowing for Federal jurisdiction in this area remains absolutely necessary to right …

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.

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.

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents.

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Locking The Golden Door And Throwing Away The Key: An Analysis Of Asylum During The Years Of The Trump Administration, Samantha B. Karpman

Touro Law Review

The years of the Trump Administration have certainly been some of the most divisive in modern American political history. One of the largest divides arose from former President Trump’s brazen, “zero tolerance” immigration policies that relentlessly attacked many forms of immigration coming into the United States. Asylum-based immigration, which allows immigrants to come to this country as a safe haven when they are fleeing persecution in their home countries, was one of former President Trump’s main targets. Former President Trump even came dangerously close to eliminating asylum-based immigration with his “Death to Asylum” policy in December of 2020. President Biden …

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 …

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

Dreamers Interrupted: The Case Of The Rescission Of The Program Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In 1994, California voters went to the polls to pass Proposition 187, a measure designed to deter unauthorized immigration by denying a range of public benefits to the undocumented. Twenty-five years later, undocumented immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in our country. But if the political discourse seems similar, the civil rights toolkit is not. In an earlier era, equal protection arguments had pride of place, but today, advocates rely heavily on structural and institutional arguments to constrain official discretion.

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe declared unconstitutional a Texas statute that denied undocumented …

The Right Family, Noa Ben-Asher, Margot J. Pollans

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The family plays a starring role in American law. Families, the law tells us, are special. They merit, among others, tax deductions, testimonial privileges, untaxed inheritance, parental presumptions, and, over the course of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court has expanded individual rights stemming from familial relationships. In this Article, we argue that family matters as much for when it is ignored as for when it is featured. We shed light on the use of the family in the law by contrasting policies in which the family is the key unit of analysis with others in which it is not. …