Immigration Law Commons^™

Silencing Liberty: Why Curtailing Noncitizens' Speech Is Un-American, Erin Gray

Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Since the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel thousands of students across the world protested Israel’s involvement in the war on Gaza. Many of these protests occurred at American universities. When President Trump returned to the White House in 2025, he publicly threatened to and deport noncitizen students who participated in these protests. Following through with his promise, President Trump revoked multiple students’ visas after they participated in some form of Pro-Palestine advocacy. This Article explores whether President Trump’s actions are constitutional under the First Amendment. Ultimately, this Article concludes that President Trump violated the First Amendment by targeting noncitizen …

The Myth Of The Immigrant As A Criminal: Rhetoric, Otherness, And The Legal Construction Of Danger, Katerina Fernandez

Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

The figure of the “criminal immigrant” occupies a central place in contemporary U.S. immigration discourse, shaping public perception, enforcement priorities, and legal doctrine. Yet a substantial body of empirical research consistently demonstrates that immigrants—both documented and undocumented—commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. This Note examines why the narrative of immigrant criminality persists despite this evidence and how it influences the development and operation of immigration law. It argues that “immigrant” functions not only as a legal category but also as a socially constructed marker of Otherness, encompassing perceived differences in race, language, culture, and religion. Through this lens, …

The Expanding Digital Border: Ai, Surveillance, And The Fight For Justice, James Chesser

Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

As artificial intelligence transforms the mechanisms of immigration control, the modern border has become a digital filter—one governed less by geography and more by code. This Article examines the legal, technical, and ethical implications of AI-driven systems now central to global border enforcement, including biometric surveillance, algorithmic risk scoring, and predictive profiling. It explores how states use these technologies not only to manage irregular migration, but to compete for global talent—constructing migration regimes that reward capital and compliance while eroding transparency, due process, and equality.

Through an international and comparative lens, the piece highlights the expansion of algorithmic decision-making across …

Bringing Order To Chaos: Hearsay Rules In Immigration Courts, Joseph Romano

Immigration Law Blog

This Article examines the admission of hearsay evidence in immigration courts, where judges apply a flexible “probative and fundamentally fair” standard rather than the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Article identifies a lack of clear doctrinal guidance and resulting disparities across cases. To address this gap, the Article proposes a structured four-factor framework focusing on reliability, corroboration, opportunity for rebuttal, and outcome centrality to better ensure consistent and fair adjudication.

Fluctuating Hallucinations: On The Boundaries Of Immigration Judges’ Discretion In The Determination Of Asylum Based On Political Opinions, Yan Zhang

Immigration Law Blog

This article examines the enigmatic nature and blurred boundaries of the discretionary power exercised by immigration judges in asylum cases, highlighting how the scope of such discretion—whether broad or narrow—proves decisive for the applicants and their families. Through a comparative analysis of specific cases, the article underscores the critical importance of immigration judges seeking to discern and follow the true intent of the law—specifically, by deeply understanding and defining the threshold of “persecution,” delineating the boundaries of “political opinion,” and appropriately weighing and prioritizing immigration policies within their specific historical contexts. Furthermore, it is essential that judges conduct a comprehensive …

The Hidden Power Of Citizenship: Political Identity In The Twilight Zone Of Equal Protection, Charles J. Anderson

Indiana Law Journal

More than half a century ago, in the landmark case of Graham v. Richardson, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state-level blanket exclusions of noncitizens. That case ushered in a new rule: State classifications based on alienage are “inherently suspect” and subject to strict scrutiny. But Graham’s rule has a major exception. Just a few years after Graham was decided, the Court upheld several state laws excluding noncitizens from working as police officers, public school teachers, and probation officers. So was created what would later be termed “political function” doctrine. …

Representation In Removal Proceedings, Emily Ryo, Ian Peacock, Weston Ley, Christopher Levesque

Indiana Law Journal

Millions of immigrants in the United States are facing threats of mass deportation under the second Trump Administration. At the same time, the Administration has sought to end federal programs aimed at providing basic information and guidance to immigrants in removal proceedings. In addition, large numbers of immigration judges have been fired from immigration courts that already face massive backlogs. Amidst these upheavals, deportation defense lawyers have come to occupy a more central role than ever in ensuring fairness and due process in immigration courts. Are certain groups of immigrants more likely to obtain legal representation than others? Among those …

Interrogation Of Regents And Administrative Reliance Interests In The Context Of Vacillating Immigration Policy, Sarah Engelberg-Nolan

Fordham Law Review

Arbitrary and capricious review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) operates as an important agency-accountability tool when invoked as intended. But the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and subsequent lower federal court cases have opened the floodgates to a more searching and potentially activist review. In Regents, the Court held that the administration of President Donald J. Trump could not rescind the discretionary immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the manner the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted, in part because DHS failed to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Domestic Guestworkers: A Call To End The H-2b Program And Empower American Workers, Preston Huennekens

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Welcome To The Trump Administration’S Board Of Immigration Appeals. The Immigrant Always Loses., Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

The first 100 opinions in Volume 29 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential decisions—issued at more than three times the historical pace—constitute a project. The Trump Administration has used the Attorney General’s self-referral power and a reconstituted, ideologically aligned Board to engineer a body of precedents that reliably produces one result: removal. This Essay organizes these decisions, cataloged in a full Appendix, into five main categories: (1) narrowing relief for noncitizens alleging persecution; (2) expanding mandatory detention while narrowing discretionary release; (3) maximizing the immigration consequences of criminal history and related grounds while foreclosing the relief mechanisms Congress created …

The Kennedy Familys' Influence On The Passage Of The Immigration And Nationality Act Of 1965, Jillian Wallshield

The Cardinal Edge

This paper covers the influence of the Kennedy Family on immigration policy in the United States. United States immigration legislation changed dramatically in the 1960s with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (sometimes called the Hart-Cellar Act). This shift was caused primarily by the political work of prominent figures like John F. Kennedy, and, later, Edward Kennedy. Edward Kennedy in particular is examined through his influence on Lyndon B. Johnson, the President under which the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed. This position is supported through the examination of relevant public speeches, private telephone calls, and …

Civil Rights Microviolations, Alissa Cooley Yonesawa, Michael Kagan

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This essay is an attempt to name and define a certain kind of civil rights problem. Namely: Rights violations that are small enough that the rational thing for the victim to do might be to just cope with them, but when allowed to fester and repeat, do significant damage. We call these problems microviolations. To define them, we borrow from the idea of a microaggression, a concept that developed to understand an analogous challenge in workplace and school discrimination. We offer a diagnosis of why microviolations are both problematic and difficult to address, and arguments that they should be a …

The U Visa At 25: Legislative Missteps, Bureaucratic Neglect, And Geographic Roulette, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

A quarter century ago, Congress created the U visa with dual goals: protecting immigrant crime victims and facilitating law enforcement cooperation by removing deportation barriers to crime reporting. Yet the program as implemented has fallen dramatically short of these aims. This Essay provides the first comprehensive analysis of the U visa's structural failures at its twenty-fifth anniversary. Two fundamental design flaws plague the program. First, Congress capped U visas at 10,000 annually-far below actual need-while the immigration agency has consistently failed to implement congressionally-authorized interim protections. The result is that, as of 2025, applicants wait five years for work authorization …

Desperate Crossings, Unjust Seas: Challenging The Interdiction And Forcible Return Of Asylum Seekers On The High Seas, Katarina Herring-Trott

Fordham Law Review Online

In the past two years, irregular maritime migration has reached levels not seen in decades. International human rights law requires that states screen migrants’ asylum claims and prohibits states from returning migrants to a place where they face persecution. However, due to recent trends in refugee securitization, states attempt to dodge their international obligations by going to the high seas and forcibly returning migrant vessels. States are not held accountable for these forced returns, owing to gray areas in overlapping provisions of maritime and human rights law. This Essay analyzes ambiguous maritime law provisions, interpreting them in accordance with relevant …

Resurrecting Immigration Releases, Lindsay Nash

Articles

The nation’s “mandatory” immigration-detention laws sustain its largest civil-imprisonment system—and just radically expanded in scope and breadth. These laws consign broad swaths of suspected noncitizens to no-bail pretrial detention, denying tens of thousands of people facing civil regulatory charges any chance to prove they need not be detained. These laws turn split-second arrest decisions into jail sentences. They force people to give up meritorious claims. And they confound the historic presumptions—liberty, innocence, prosecutorial discretion, and bail—that undergird other pretrial-detention regimes. Although mandatory immigration detention conflicts with fundamental constraints on analogous detention regimes, the Supreme Court has treated it as exceptional …

Weaponized Bureaucracy At The Criminal Immigration Divide, Dorien Ediger-Seto

Washington Law Review

Despite deportation being entrenched as a civil consequence rather than a punishment over 100 years ago, today’s immigration enforcement and deportation scheme relies heavily on state-level criminal arrests, convictions, and data sharing systems. And immigration-based crimes have accounted for between twenty-five and fifty percent of all federal criminal charges over the past decade. But the fact that the systems are bureaucratically and doctrinally separate from each other has practical impacts that go beyond these formalized intersections. Not only do federal law enforcement actors often have dual mandates to investigate and prosecute federal crimes alongside related civil removal cases, but criminal …

Reason Enough: The Wrongful Extension Of Asylum’S “One Central Reason” Nexus Standard To Withholding Of Removal, Elaine Hernandez Flores

Washington Law Review

Noncitizens often come to the United States seeking protection from violence, persecution, or life-threatening conditions in their home countries. However, upon arrival, many noncitizens are placed in removal proceedings and face deportation back to the very dangers they escaped. U.S. immigration law provides various forms of relief from deportation, most notably asylum and withholding of removal. Both forms require the applicant to show a connection—or “nexus”—between the persecutor’s motive for persecuting them and one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Although asylum and withholding of removal both require a noncitizen …

When Detention Becomes A Death Sentence: The Urgent Need For Greater Due Process Protections For Ice Detainees, Kyle J. Smith

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note argues that U.S. immigration detention, though legally classified as civil, operates as a punitive carceral system that routinely subjects immigrants to abuse, neglect, and preventable death. Drawing on the tragic case of Ernesto Javier Rocha Cuadra and other documented instances of physical violence, medical neglect, solitary confinement, and sexual abuse, it demonstrates how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') relies on detention as a default mechanism rather than as a last resort. The result is a system that mirrors the criminal legal system in scale and severity but denies detainees its constitutional safeguards.
The analysis situates the rise …