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.
On Feb. 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cast doubt on the legality of the “Remain in Mexico” program and a rule limiting access to asylum.
What should we make of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s analysis of the FBI’s role in preparing FISA requests?
In October, President Trump issued a proclamation denying entry into the U.S. for otherwise qualified visa applicants unless they are likely to receive “approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry or can pay for their health care. A District Court just issued an injunction against the ban.
In a new rule, DHS authorizes removal of asylum seekers at the southern border of the U.S. to Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador for asylum processing in those countries, as long as the removed individuals are not nationals of the particular country that will receive them.
The decision highlighted key tensions between the ban on uninsured immigrants and existing law.
On Oct. 4, President Trump issued a proclamation that bars otherwise qualified visa applicants from entry into the United States unless they are likely to obtain “approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry.
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the third country asylum rule recently issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule would bar foreign nationals who cross the U.S.-Mexico border from receipt of U.S. asylum when they transit through a third country without applying for protection in that country.