Tag Archives: immigration

U.S. v. California: The District Court’s Preliminary Injunction Ruling

by Bernard Bell — Friday, July 27, 2018

On March 6, 2018, the Justice Department sued California over its “sanctuary” laws.  U.S. v. California, Dkt No. 18-264, Complaint (E.D. Cal.); Thomas Fuller & Vivien Yee, Jeff Sessions Scolds California in Immigration Speech: “We Have a Problem,” N.Y. Times A22 (March 7, 2018).  The District Court has now ruled on the federal government’s preliminary […]

Brett Kavanaugh and the Case of the Brazilian Gauchos

by Michael Kagan — Tuesday, July 24, 2018@MichaelGKagan

Because he sat on the D.C. Circuit, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did not decide many immigration cases. There are no immigration courts in the District of Columbia. As a result, petitions for review of orders of removal — the most common type of immigration appeal in the federal courts — do not reach his […]

Administrative Law’s Ordinary Remand Rule: In re Negusie Edition

by Chris Walker — Monday, July 2, 2018@chris_j_walker

When a court concludes that an agency’s decision is erroneous, the ordinary rule is to remand to the agency to consider the issue anew (as opposed to the court deciding the issue itself). The Supreme Court arguably first articulated this ordinary remand rule in the Chenery decisions in the 1940s. As I explore elsewhere, the Court […]

What 2016 Gorsuch Opinions Could Mean for 2017 Re-Argument in Sessions v. Dimaya

by Michael Kagan — Monday, July 3, 2017@MichaelGKagan

At the end of its term, a shorthanded and evidently evenly divided Supreme Court scheduled two immigration cases for re-argument next term when nine justices can hear the cases. Of the two, Sessions v. Dimaya stands out because the ninth and newest justice has very recently issued opinions that seem to bear directly on key […]

Prosecutorial Discretion at ICE: My Latest FOIA Adventure, by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

by Guest Blogger — Friday, May 26, 2017

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the decision made by employees of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about whether and to what extent immigration laws should be exercised against a person or group of persons. When DHS chooses to not pursue arrest or detention of an undocumented mother living in the United States for many years […]

De-Funding Sanctuary Cities, by Bernard W. Bell

by Guest Blogger — Tuesday, Mar. 28, 2017

Sanctuary cities protect undocumented aliens by adopting policies regarding: (1) inquiries into immigration status, (2) immigration-related detentions, or (3) information-sharing with federal officials. On January 25, President Trump issued Executive Order 13768, which threatens to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that violate 8 U.S.C. §1373.[1] Section 1373, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility […]

Faith in the Ninth Circuit

by Daniel Hemel — Thursday, Mar. 16, 2017

The Ninth Circuit’s decision to deny en banc review in Washington v. Trump was not, of course, the biggest development yesterday in litigation related to the President’s executive orders restricting entry from seven six overwhelmingly Muslim countries. But the Ninth Circuit’s denial of reconsideration—and, more specifically, Judge Bybee’s dissent from the denial—is worthy of attention […]

The Tenth Circuit vs. Brand X

by Daniel Hemel — Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2016

In the 2005 Brand X decision, the Supreme Court held that “[a] court’s prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute.” Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet […]

Midnight Agency Adjudication, by Margaret H. Taylor

by Guest Blogger — Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016

A presidential election year provides a good time to reflect on administrative law scholarship addressing presidential transitions. “Midnight rulemaking” is a term used to describe the well-documented phenomenon of an increase in the volume of regulatory activity in the three months preceding a presidential administration. Scholarly literature and policy studies of midnight rulemaking are voluminous. […]

The Aftermath of United States v. Texas: Rediscovering Deferred Action, by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia

by Guest Blogger — Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling in the immigration case of United States v. Texas, blocking two “deferred action” programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014: extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Plus) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Residents (DAPA).[1] The 4-4 ruling […]