This chapter will tell the legal, historical, and political tale of two major immigration cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during President Barack Obama's Administration: Arizona v. United States, which addressed whether states could adopt their own immigration enforcement policies, and United States v. Texas, which grappled with the power of the President to alter federal immigration policy through his enforcement choices. Although these cases were nominally about two very different constitutional doctrines - Arizona was federalism case, and Texas raised separation of powers issues - they turned on the same question: the scope of the executive's power over immigration policy in an era of congressional inaction. Accordingly, Arizona and Texas are case studies not only of the fraught politics of immigration reform during Obama's presidency, but also the broader political dysfunction of the era.
In their article, The “Free White Person” Clause of the Naturalization Act of 1790 as Super-Statute, Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman make a...
The United States has granted reparations for a variety of historical injustices, from imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War...
A crucial first step in addressing intimate-image abuse is its proper conceptualization. Intimate-image abuse amounts to a violation of intimate...
“Dignity” is a rallying cry of social and political movements worldwide. It also appears in legal doctrine and scholarship. But the meaning of dignity...
This paper describes the response of George Washington's administration to a plea for emergency war financing from French colonists who were trying to...
The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Immigration Law is perhaps the first book-length treatment of the subject of comparative immigration law. The...
A widely studied topic in comparative law is the extent to which countries’ legal origins—and especially whether they are a civil or common law system...
A growing experimental literature suggests that international law appears to have a larger impact on public opinion than constitutional law. Because...
The United States has taken legislative and executive actions to address human rights violations committed by the People's Republic of China (PRC)...
On October 14, 2021, the United States was elected to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), fulfilling a pledge President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made during...
Human rights discourse has become central to the global debates about treatment of and solutions for refugees and displaced persons. Following the...
The constitutional rules that govern how states engage with international law have profound implications for foreign affairs, yet we lack...