16178 research outputs found
Sort by
The Road to Slow Deportation
Full text linkTraffic stops are the most common form of police-initiated contact with members of the public. The sheer volume of traffic stops combined with their use as a pretext to surveil Black and Latiné communities has generated substantial scholarship and movements for police reform. Yet this commentary assumes that the subjects of traffic stops are U.S. citizens. At the same time, scholarship on the intersection of criminal and immigration law and the convergence of their enforcement methods focuses on traffic stops as the immediate entry point for removal proceedings. This Article addresses the gap in literature by describing the experience of noncitizens who endure frequent traffic stops that result in neither immediate criminal nor immigration proceedings but nonetheless produce significant legal and nonlegal consequences—consequences that are likely to grow under a second Trump administration.
This Article frames the experience of traffic stops for noncitizens as a form of “slow deportation.” It describes how the use of traffic stops to police noncitizens extends the system of racialized social control to immigrant communities with the effect of surveilling both race and status. It surveys scholarship across disciplines, racial categories, and citizenship status and uses our clients’ stories to map the cumulative, compounding, and subterranean harms of traffic stops that culminate in the emotional, social, and sometimes legal exclusion of noncitizens and their families. This Article concludes by proposing new approaches to counseling, policy reform, and coalition building informed by the lens of slow deportation
Perspectives on the Military Uses of AI
No full textPanel Moderator: Prof Gary Corn, Director of the Technology, Law & Security Program and adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.
Panelist: Ms. Carla Crandall, Command National Security Law Counsel, U.S. Army Futures Command, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate.
Panelist: Dr. Brian Cox, Adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School; Graduate research fellow with the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s University.
Panelist: Dr. Bill Boothby, Air Cdre, RAF (ret.), author, AI Warfare and the Law (2025
Shortburst: Rules of Engagement, Law, and the Role of JAGs
No full textMaj Gen Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Directo
Our Marbury: Loper Bright and the Administrative State
No full textLoper Bright, overruling Chevron, is unmistakably part of administrative law’s current “Grand Narrative,” which sees contemporary administrative agencies with suspicion, as a product of successive breaches of Article I, II, and III of the Constitution. The decision should be seen as our Marbury v. Madison—an effort to insist that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. But will the decision produce large changes? The answer depends, of course, on the meaning of both Chevron and Loper Bright. Under Chevron, courts hardly gave a blank check to agencies; on the contrary, they frequently invalidated agency interpretations of law. How much will invalidation rates rise? We cannot give a confident answer, in part (1) because Loper Bright retains Skidmore (which calls for respectful attention to agency interpretations); in part (2) because Loper Bright recognizes that Congress sometimes explicitly or implicitly delegates interpretive authority to agencies; and in part (3) because (and these must be counted as some of its effects) Loper Bright will (a) increase litigants’ incentive to attack agency interpretations and (b) reduce agencies’ incentive to adopt adventurous interpretations (though agencies may have other incentives to do that). Any numerical projection would be hazardous, but Loper Bright gives a clear signal, a green light to federal courts where Chevron gave a yellow light—which means that it is reasonable to predict a nontrivial increase in judicial invalidations (other things being equal). It is also safe to predict that in the near future, the combination of Loper Bright with increasing judicial skepticism about the administrative state will result in a nontrivial increase in invalidation of regulations designed to protect health, safety, and the environment. In the near future, Loper Bright will also lead to a significant increase in ideological divisions in the lower courts. Still, Loper Bright is our Marbury, and will, sooner rather than later, be seen as such in mounting conflicts between agencies and courts
Jarkesy\u27s Stakes for the SEC
No full textIntro by Jacob
James F. Tierney, Jarkesy’s Stakes for the SEC
Discussant Kristin Hickma