Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
From Ambiguity to Accountability: The Case for a Legal Definition of Antisemitism in Academia
No full textFollowing the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, U.S. college campuses experienced a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents, driven by an antizionism movement aimed at demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state and its supporters. A congressional investigation found that antisemitism persisted at prominent universities because administrators repeatedly failed to denounce antizionist conduct that functions as a vehicle for harassment of Jewish students and neglected to enforce their own nondiscrimination policies. The congressional committee, as well as several university antisemitism task forces, identified antizionism as a primary driver of campus antisemitism and strongly recommended that university leaders recognize and address how hostility towards Zionists serves as a proxy for harassment of Jewish students. The widely adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA Definition or the Definition) provides a vital legal and policy framework to serve this purpose. It addresses antizionism by providing examples of this contemporary form of antisemitism, such as using Israel libels to deny Jewish people their right to self-determination and applying discriminatory double standards exclusively to Israel. While critics complain that these examples may chill political speech, the IHRA Definition explicitly affirms that criticism of Israel comparable to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic, and its examples provide accurate and instructive guidance on antisemitism. This Article argues that formally adopting the IHRA Definition into university nondiscrimination policies, training programs, and enforcement mechanisms is essential to dispel the prevailing ambiguity surrounding antizionism as a contemporary form of antisemitism and to restore institutional accountability in combating campus antisemitism
Extended Detention Without Due Process: Resolving a Circuit Split in Favor of Detained Noncitizen Migrants’ Due Process Rights
No full textLess than two months before American voters cast their ballots in the 2024 presidential election, a circuit split emerged regarding whether the Due Process Clause allows noncitizens with certain criminal convictions to be held indefinitely throughout their deportation proceedings without the right to a bond hearing. Specifically, the First, Second, and Third Circuits disagree with the Eighth Circuit over whether noncitizens may be detained for the duration of their deportation proceedings under Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) without the right to a bond hearing. In January 2025, Congress subjected additional classes of noncitizens, including those who are accused of shoplifting or theft, to Section 236(c) when it passed the Laken Riley Act. This Comment urges the Supreme Court and lower federal courts to side with the First, Second, and Third Circuits in finding that noncitizens have a constitutional right to a prompt bond hearing once their mandatory detention under Section 236(c) has become unreasonable under the Due Process Clause. It also encourages the adoption of the Third Circuit’s non-exhaustive four-factor test from German Santos v. Warden Pike Correctional Facility to determine when the Due Process Clause entitles a noncitizen who is detained under Section 236(c) to a bond hearing. In addition, this Comment argues that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts should clarify that the German Santos test applies to both lawfully present and undocumented noncitizens. This Comment likewise encourages federal courts to require on constitutional grounds that (1) the government satisfy a clear and convincing evidentiary standard at noncitizens’ bond hearings, and (2) immigration judges consider noncitizens’ ability to pay bond. Furthermore, this Comment urges Congress to exempt undocumented youth and DACA recipients from the Laken Riley Act’s provisions, and / or to spare minors from Section 236(c) entirely
