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.
In a decision with benefits for both the government and the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a partial stay on Aug.
Editor's note: This post has been updated to address the Guatemala Safe Third Country Agreement that United States and Guatemalan officials announced on Friday, July 26.
On July 15, the Department of Homeland Security posted an interim final rule (IFR) that limits asylum by barring applications from claimants at the southern border who passed through a third country on their way to the United States but did not seek asylum in that country.
On May 7, the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction against the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy, officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires the return of certain migrants to Mexico pending a full immigration court hearing.
President Trump continued his push for new restrictions on asylum seekers with his April 29 memorandum to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Justice Department. In the memo, Trump directed DHS to issue regulations that would bar work permits for asylum seekers who enter the United States unlawfully and—for the first time—charge a fee for applying for asylum.
The Supreme Court’s March 19 decision on in Nielsen v. Preap rejected challenges to mandatory detention of certain noncitizens—“aliens” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Generally speaking, mandatory immigration detention is an exception to the rule that confinement requires an individualized showing of flight risk or dangerousness.
Politicians, trial lawyers and drafters of reports learn early on that framing an argument is central to the task of persuasion. And so it goes for the report by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the border confrontation that occurred last spring between Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the tens of thousands of Gaza residents who sought to force their way into Israel by breaching the security barrier.