Peter Margulies is a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, where he teaches Immigration Law, National Security Law and Professional Responsibility. He is the author of Law’s Detour: Justice Displaced in the Bush Administration (New York: NYU Press, 2010).
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The Inspector General report yields disturbing inferences about the situational awareness of former FBI Director James Comey and the judgment of several senior FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
While it can be risky to predict the outcome of cases based on oral argument, the Supreme Court appears to be leaning toward upholding President Trump’s travel ban.
When the government argues Trump v. Hawaii before the Supreme Court on April 25, it will rely on the president’s Article II power. What are that argument’s merits?
The Fourth Circuit’s vote against the travel ban suggests that the ban’s challengers have work ahead of them if they are to triumph before the Supreme Court.
The Fourth Circuit’s vote against the travel ban suggests that the ban’s challengers have work ahead of them if they are to triumph before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Ninth Circuit travel ban case.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the president’s proclamation (EO-3), which indefinitely limits immigration from certain listed countries, exceeds the president’s power under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).