Sat Mar 3, 2018
PANEL: Global Crackdown on Civil Society: USA, Russia, and India (New York City Bar Ass’n, Tue Mar 6, 2018, 6:00pm)
Tue Aug 1, 2017
SYMPOSIUM VOLUME: Twenty Years After the 1996 Immigration Laws, Drexel Law Review, Vol. 9 No. 2 (Spring 2017)
Thu Jun 15, 2017
REPORT AND OBJECTING STATEMENT: New York City Bar Ass’n Task Force on the New York State Constitutional Convention, June 14, 2017
Sun Sep 18, 2016
PANEL: Human Rights in Turkey After the Attempted Coup (New York City Bar Ass’n, Mon Sep 26, 2016, 6:00pm)
Fri Sep 16, 2016
DREXEL SYMPOSIUM: Twenty Years After the 1996 Immigration Laws: Revisiting an Experiment in Comprehensive Severity (Fri Oct 14 2016)
** To watch a live video stream of the symposium, click here **
Thu Sep 1, 2016
Thu Jul 14, 2016
By Debra L. Raskin and Anil Kalhan
Tue Jun 28, 2016
It may be tempting to regard the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision last week in United States v. Texas, the Republican lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration initiatives, as something of a “non-decision” or “punt.” The Court’s one-line opinion—which, by convention, affirms the lower court’s judgment but has no further precedential effect—does not address any of the substantive issues presented in the case. Nor does the opinion itself disclose how any of the justices voted on any of the questions before them, although there seems little mystery as to which justices were likely on each side of the decision. And especially since the case came to the Supreme Court at the preliminary injunction stage, the litigation may be far from over—making it even more plausible to understand the Court’s decision as one that defers ultimate resolution of those issues.
Sun May 29, 2016
Please join us for the 3rd Annual South Asian Legal Academics (SALA) Workshop. The mission of SALA is to create and sustain a supportive space within which South Asian legal scholars and teachers can learn and grow to achieve their maximum potential.
Wed Apr 20, 2016
When the justices of the Supreme Court deliberate over the issues in United States v. Texas, the Republican lawsuit seeking to invalidate the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives, they would do well to reflect upon just how far the arguments that the plaintiffs have presented to them diverge from those that were presented to Judge Andrew Hanen in the Southern District of Texas when the lawsuit was originally filed.
Mon Apr 18, 2016
When the Supreme Court considers what it hears this week in United States v. Texas—the Republican lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives—the justices should start by getting the basic facts right, which is something that both the administration’s political opponents and lower court judges have scrupulously failed to do.
Tue Mar 15, 2016
PANEL/CLE: Using International Human Rights Strategies to Effect Change in the United States (New York City Bar Ass’n, Mar. 30, 2016, 6:00p)
Using International Human Rights Strategies to Effect Change in the United States
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
New York City Bar Association
42 West 44 Street, New York, NY 10036
** Click here to register **
Mon Feb 15, 2016
DAPA, “Lawful Presence,” and the Illusion of a Problem (Yale Journal on Regulation Notice & Comment)
In an essay published earlier this week, Prof. Michael Kagan expresses concern that “one aspect” of the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration might be vulnerable when the Supreme Court adjudicates United States v. Texas later this year. In particular, Kagan worries that the plaintiffs might “have a valid point” when they assert that the administration’s initiatives—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents and its predecessor, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—improperly purport “to make lawful something that Congress has made unlawful.” Kagan’s concern rests principally—and possibly in its entirety—on a stray line in the memorandum issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to establish DAPA and expand DACA, which states that “deferred action … means that, for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the United States” (emphasis added).
Tue Jan 19, 2016
PANEL/CLE: Human Rights Obligations and the Refugee Crisis (New York City Bar Ass’n, Feb 3, 2016, 6:00p) #NYCBarRefugees
A program on Feb 3, 2016 addressing developments in the refugee crisis, legal assistance efforts underway in the US, and projects seeking pro bono lawyers.
Thu Dec 17, 2015
PANEL DISCUSSION: Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases (New York Law School, Jan 7 2015, 6:30p)
Mon Jul 27, 2015
ARTICLE: Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, and the Rule of Law Basis for Executive Action on Immigration, 63 UCLA Law Review Discourse 58 (2015)
As the scale of the expansive and fragmented immigration enforcement regime has grown to such enormous levels — making the interrelated challenges of ensuring consistent execution of the law and fidelity to enforcement priorities more formidable — the need for effective mechanisms to supervise the discretion exercised by rank-and-file officials has only grown more important. But even as it purports to respect the government’s enforcement priorities, the logic of Judge Hanen’s ruling would largely disable policymaking officials from implementing such mechanisms, requiring them instead to let the vagaries of the bureaucracy reign supreme. The decision therefore not only inhibits the agency’s ability to establish enforcement priorities and manage its scarce resources, but also fails to acknowledge the importance of rule of law values such as consistency, transparency, accountability, and nonarbitrariness in the execution of the immigration laws.
Wed Jun 3, 2015
Judge Smith’s opinion is no less mistaken for having substituted “lawful presence” where Judge Hanen would have used “legal status.”
Mon Feb 23, 2015
Wed Jan 14, 2015
In recent years, immigration enforcement levels have soared, yielding a widely noted increase in the number of noncitizens removed from the United States. Less visible, however, has been an attendant sea change in the underlying nature of immigration governance itself, hastened by new surveillance and dataveillance technologies. Like many other areas of contemporary governance, immigration control has rapidly become an information-centered and technology-driven enterprise. At virtually every stage of the process of migrating or traveling to, from, and within the United States, both noncitizens and U.S. citizens are now subject to collection and analysis of extensive quantities of personal information for immigration control and other purposes. This information is aggregated and stored by government agencies for long retention periods in networks of interoperable databases and shared among a variety of public and private actors, both inside and outside the United States, with little transparency, oversight, or accountability.
Sat Jan 10, 2015
ARTICLE: Stop and Frisk, Judicial Independence, and the Ironies of Improper Appearances, 27 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1043 (2014)