A two-judge majority found that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants discretion to keep migrants seeking to enter the United States in Mexico pending a hearing.
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 president justified new restrictions on asylum as a response to the recent marked uptick in arrivals at the southern border. But each measure is a blunt instrument that could harm bona fide asylum claimants.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Nielsen v. Preap suggests that future constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention will face formidable obstacles.
The new U.N. report on the Gaza border protests applies the wrong legal standard.
But the lack of tailoring—the careful fitting of means to chosen ends—in the military’s transgender policy should prompt the courts to look more closely at the Trump administration’s rescissions of various measures followed or implemented by the Obama administration.
The denial means that the administration will have to first seek review of Judge Tigar’s injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Judge John Tigar’s decision echoes his previous emphasis, and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.