bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Lethal Immigration Enforcement
No full textIncreasingly, U.S. immigration law and policy perpetuate death. As more people become displaced globally, death provides a measurable indicator of the level of racialized violence inflicted on migrants of color. Because of Clinton-era policies continued today, deaths at the border have reached unprecedented rates, with more than two migrant deaths per day. A record 853 border crossers died last year, and the deadliest known transporting incident took place in June 2022, with fifty-one lives lost. In addition, widespread neglect continues to cause loss of life in immigration detention, immigration enforcement agents kill migrants with virtual impunity, and immigration law ensures courts routinely order people deported to their deaths. As these preventable deaths persist, particularly among migrants of color, the Supreme Court has all but foreclosed causes of action against individual federal agents for wrongful death. It has done so most notably in its recent 2022 decision Egbert v. Boule, further limiting judicial remedies for constitutional violations and sanctioning use of force as a routine function of immigration enforcement.
This Article provides a novel perspective on law enforcement and race. It is the first to provide a comprehensive examination of lethal immigration enforcement, arguing that racialized policy rationales, impunity instituted by courts, and prevailing political paradigms have coalesced to render migrants of color expendable. Therefore, the enforcement system must be reimagined. While scholars have begun to analyze the immigration system in terms of “slow death,” or harms that occur over time, a holistic view of “spectacular deaths,” those readily perceived, is lacking. After mapping how the immigration enforcement system takes migrant lives, this Article interrogates the policy rationales for lethal enforcement in light of largely unexamined data, finding that anti-Blackness drives punitive immigration detention and the perceived dangerousness of Latinx migrants fuels lethal border policies. It then turns to an analysis of wrongful death actions and recent Supreme Court doctrine, poised to impede remedies for excessive force in courts further and escalate racialized violence against noncitizens. Ultimately, given the urgency of addressing rising migrant mortality, it calls for a paradigm shift beyond liberal reforms to end lethal enforcement and its racial subordination
Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Words Will Never Hurt Me. Or Will They? The Eleventh Circuit Expands the “Extreme Cruelty” Definition in 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(2) to Encompass Mental and Physical Abuse in \u3ci\u3eRuiz v. United States Attorney General\u3c/i\u3e
No full textThe Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), originally passed in 1994, was the first federal legislation acknowledging domestic violence as a crime. As part of this Act, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a rule that allows battered spouses (or children) who are not citizens or nationals of the United States of America to seek the discretionary cancellation of the government’s removal of them from the country. The VAWA special-rule was enacted as a way to enable abuse victims to obtain discretionary deportation relief, allowing them to leave their abusers without fear of deportation or other immigration-related consequences. ...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explored this issue in Ruiz v. United States Attorney General, where the court was tasked with determining whether the term “extreme cruelty,” within 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)—titled “Special rule for battered spouse or child”—should be read to encompass both physical and mental abuse, or just physical abuse. In holding that the use of “extreme cruelty” within this VAWA special-rule should be read to encompass both physical and mental abuse, the Eleventh Circuit made a decisive move to recognize the effects of mental abuse on domestic violence victims beyond physical harm
Panel II: Ethical Crisis in the Profession? The Trump Lawyers and Their Disciplinary Actions
No full textMarch Madness Competition
No full textWednesday, March 27, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, The Commons
March Madness continues! You are invited to jump into the March Madness fever (if you aren\u27t already burning up) with a mini (literally miniature) hoops competition and snacks!
Rep your favorite college basketball team\u27s colors this Wednesday and pop by The Commons between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m. to show off your hand-eye coordination and win some freshly baked pretzel bites.
Shoutout to 1Ls Tim Voung, Tri Troung, and Kayla Dixon for making this happen! If you see them, be sure to let them know they are awesome!
Sponsor: Student Bar Association, Spirit Committeehttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1840/thumbnail.jp
The Procedural Justice Industrial Complex
No full textThe singular focus on procedural justice police reform is dangerous. Procedurally just law enforcement encounters provide an empirically proven subjective sense of fairness and legitimacy, while obscuring substantively unjust outcomes emanating from a fundamentally unjust system. The deceptive simplicity of procedural justice – that a polite cop is a lawful cop – promotes a false consciousness among would-be reformers that progress has been made, evokes a false sense of legitimacy divorced from objective indicia of lawfulness or morality, and claims the mantle of “reform” in the process. It is not just that procedural justice is a suboptimal type of reform; it is the type of reform that actively frustrates other reforms by dressing up policing with the perception of correctness and legitimacy.
And yet, procedural justice dominates police reform policy. Virtually all current federally funded police reform proposals support procedural justice trainings to the exclusion of proposals to address police brutality, eliminate discriminatory overpolicing, demilitarize departments, and end qualified immunity. As a result, a growing procedural justice industrial complex has taken shape. This multilayered public-private partnership between government agencies, academic institutions, and for-profit training companies increasingly helps police departments “protect their brand” and “reduce liability” through procedural politeness, while requiring no changes to unlawful, unnecessary, and violent police behavior.
This Article provides the first comprehensive account of this growing complex, charting its roots in community policing and evolving into a cottage industry of private, for-profit purveyors offering costly procedural justice trainings to departments flush with federal grant money. This Article also challenges the dominant scholarly narrative supporting these procedural justice policies, interrogating its role in promoting unnecessary ubiquitous police presence and justifying new racially discriminatory practices like “hot spots policing” and “precision policing.” In doing so, the Article applies these process-oriented critiques to five substantive police reform proposals, exploring how this singular focus on procedural justice distinctly frustrates more necessary transformative reforms in the areas of discriminatory policing, police brutality, police accountability, legal reform, and police abolition
How Local Paid Sick Time Innovations —And the COVID-19 Pandemic —Have Shaped a Growing Paid Leave Movement across the United States
No full text
The Federal Home Loan Banks Approach 100: Evolution from Housing Lender to Liquidity Provider
No full textDesigning Sanctuary
No full textIn recent decades, a growing number of cities in the United States have adopted “sanctuary policies” that limit local participation in federal immigration enforcement. Existing scholarship has focused on their legality and effect, especially with respect to our nation’s immigration laws. Largely overlooked, however, is the local process through which sanctuary policies are designed and the reasons why cities choose to adopt them through city ordinances, mayoral orders, or employee handbooks. This Article argues that municipal sanctuary policies are far from uniform, and their variation reflects the different local interests and institutional actors behind their adoption and implementation. More specifically, municipal sanctuary policies can be broadly categorized into three models: administrative sanctuary, political sanctuary, and silent sanctuary. Each of these models reflects a specific approach in how cities choose to balance their political relationship with residents, their administrative relationship with employees, and their intergovernmental relations with the state and federal government. Moreover, these three models correspond with different eras in sanctuary’s development and anti-sanctuary responses at the state and federal level. This typology highlights the structural and institutional forces that have contributed to the diversity of sanctuary policies in the United States. In addition, it calls into question many of the assumptions in the sanctuary literature about the assessment of sanctuary policies, the goals of anti-sanctuary efforts, and the effect of all of this on local policymaking