While the Supreme Court rejected statutory arguments against Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the statutory case against the new asylum proclamation is more pointed.
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 oral argument suggests at least three possible outcomes.
Tactical context is important in assessing the report of the Military Advocate General of the Israel Defense Force on Operation Protective Edge.
An assessment of Judge Kavanaugh’s record on military commissions should include a fair decision for a Guantanamo detainee.
The Supreme Court sought to nudge the president toward more civil rhetoric. But the majority rejected claims that the travel ban exceeded the scope of congressional delegation under the Immigration and Nationality Act or violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Consistent with a recent ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court, it is vital that the IDF take, in good faith, appropriate investigatory steps in response to any use of force during the recent violence in Gaza that appears to have been improper.
The Inspector General on the FBI in Fall 2016: How a Fateful Delay Set the Stage for the Ultimate October Surprise
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.