Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar contrasts Florida’s recent enactment of one of the strictest measures in the country to prohibit state and local entities from becoming “sanctuary” jurisdictions with California’s pro-sanctuary state laws. Amar explains this autonomy of states to enact such different laws with respect to federal laws as a product of the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine the Supreme Court has applied in three major cases over the past quarter century.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President Trump’s threat to escalate tariffs on all Mexican goods if Mexico had not stopped the flow of Central American Migrants erroneously presumes a win-lose situation where none exists. Dorf also explains the fallacy of the criticism that immigration and trade ought to be always kept separate in negotiations.
Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why President Trump’s proposal that detained immigrants be relocated to sanctuary cities violates the Supreme Court’s precedent interpreting relevant constitutional provisions. Amar argues that even a conservative Supreme Court that defers to the Executive branch in matters of foreign affairs would likely not permit such action.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments or a recent controversy arising from immigration rules that place an undue emphasis on biology in determining when a US-citizen-parent can transmit citizenship to a child born abroad. Grossman calls upon the US State Department to revise its Foreign Affairs Manual to align with the statutory scheme it purports to apply.
Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on the tenuous situation in Europe as to how the member states will deal with migrants seeking asylum. Wexler describes the background of the controversy, and discusses some of the developments and decisions of individual states that may affect whether Europe can reach a mutually agreed upon solution.
Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on last week’s EU summit, in which the heads of state sought to address the immigration crisis affecting various countries in the European Union. Wexler describes the highlights of the resulting agreement and while cautiously optimistic, expresses concerns for what some of the longer term implications may be.
In anticipation of the heads of state meeting tomorrow and Friday, Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler discusses the immigration issues that threaten to break apart the European migration system. Wexler describes the nature of the issues facing the European Union and the various perspective different nations are bringing to the table.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf condemns the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban but describes a few silver linings that the ruling contains. Specifically, Dorf points out that the majority left open the possibility of future litigation challenging allegedly unlawful border policies, explicitly overruled its decision in Korematsu v. United States (which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II), denounced President Trump’s anti-Muslim statements, and served as a clear reminder that We The People can and should hold our elected official accountable for enacting or supporting abominable policies.
Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler considers the significance of various countries’ responses to the rescue of 629 migrants on the Aquarius, a humanitarian rescue ship on the Mediterranean Sea. Wexler considers first whether the responses of Italy and Malta were lawful, and then turns to the question of what their conduct means for immigration policy, not only within the European Union, but worldwide.
Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, decries the policy of the Trump administration of separating children from their parents at US borders. Hamilton explains the trauma such a policy causes and calls upon individuals and organizations to shine a spotlight on its deeply negative consequences.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against California over its so-called sanctuary policies. Amar explains why the federal government is likely to prevail on one claim, to lose on another claim, and to lose in part on the third claim. Amar laments that both sides seem to assert extreme positions that are not entirely tenable.
Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler comments on the Windrush scandal developing in the United Kingdom, just one example of immigration policies that affect not only undocumented migrants present unlawfully but also undocumented citizens present lawfully. Wexler explores the reasons for the scandal and identifies troubling shortcomings in the apology and remedy offered.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on the apparent conflict between President Trump's declaration that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is unconstitutional and his decision to delay ending it. Buchanan considers whether the inconsistent positions with respect to the program actually affect the constitutional options available to him.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that regardless of the outcome of President Trump's "Travel Ban 3.0" before the US Supreme Court, the litigation challenging the Travel Ban should be regarded as a victory over Trump's effort to rule by diktat. In support of this argument, Dorf points out that the litigation makes it abundantly clear to the American people that Trump remains every ounce the same vile and petty would-be tyrant that he appeared on the campaign trail.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes some of the key similarities and differences between the most recent iteration of President Trump’s ban on entry to the US by certain foreign nationals (“Travel Ban 3.0”) and earlier versions, and considers whether these differences will affect the determination of the policy’s legality. Although the Supreme Court might not ultimately be the court that answers the question, Dorf points out that we may have an answer before too long.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments critically on the decision by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to destroy certain records regarding detainees held in ICE custody. Margulies argues that the information ICE seeks to destroy can be helpful in assessing the conditions, staffing, supervision, and practices in various facilities, for the purpose of improving the worst ones and learning from the ones with the best practices.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses possible implications and outcomes of the Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it will review the appeals court decisions invalidating President Trump’s travel ban executive order. Dorf explains the issue of mootness and also explains how one might predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the case.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, in which the Court held unconstitutional a federal law imposing different physical presence requirements on mothers as compared to fathers. Grossman argues that the law at issue epitomized sex discrimination and was rooted in archaic generalizations about parents based on gender.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the heritability of citizenship and explains why the decision might have implications for other immigration issues, such as the “Muslim ban” executive order. Dorf argues that the precedents the Court had to distinguish to reach its conclusion might give some insight into whether and how it might defer to other political branches on immigration issues.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on recent actions by state and local governments to oppose federal policies, such as the immigration and the wall along the U.S.–Mexico border. Amar argues that these attempts likely run contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to interfere with the execution of federal policy.