Search

Begin New Search Topic Courts Political Geography North America

1. What Will It Take to Eliminate the Immigration Court Backlog? Assessing “Judge Team” Hiring Needs Based on Changed Conditions and the Need for Broader Reform

Author:
Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Borders, Asylum, and Department of Homeland Security
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Judging disparities: Recidivism risk, image motives and in-group bias on Wisconsin criminal courts

Author:
Ludovica Ciasullo and Martina Uccioli
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
This paper studies racial in-group disparities in Wisconsin, which has one of the highest Black-to-White incarceration rate ratios among all U.S. states. The analysis is motivated by a model in which a judge may want to incarcerate more due to three factors: (1) when the defendant has higher recidivism risk and is more likely to commit future crimes; (2) when the defendant is from a different group (anti-out-group preferences); and (3) when the defendant is of the same group but that group is responsible for a majority of crimes (image motives). Further, a judge may have better information on recidivism risk due to two factors: (4) becoming more experienced, and (5) sharing the same group as the defendant. We take these ideas to new data on 1 million cases from Wisconsin criminal courts, 2005-2017. Using a recidivism risk score that we construct using machine learning tools to predict reoffense, we find evidence that judges do tend to incarcerate defendants with a higher recidivism risk (1). Consistent with judge experience leading to better information on defendant recidivism risk (4), we find that more experienced judges are more responsive in jailing defendants with a high recidivism risk score. Looking at racial disparities between majority (White) and minority (Black) judges and defendants, we find no evidence for anti-out-group bias (2). Consistent with image motives (3), we find that when the minority group is responsible for most crimes, minority-group judges are harsher on their in-group. Finally, consistent with judges having better information on recidivism risk for same-group defendants (5), we find that judges are more responsive to the recidivism risk score for defendants from the same group
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Courts, Incarceration, Structural Racism, and Criminal Recidivism
Political Geography:
North America, Wisconsin, and United States of America

3. Access to Justice, the Rule of Law, and Due Process in the US Immigration System: A Tribute to Juan Osuna

Author:
Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper introduces a special collection of papers on access to justice, the rule of law, and due process in the US immigration system. The collection honors Juan Osuna, a devoted public servant and former director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the agency in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that administers the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and legal orientation, assistance, and representation programs. The collection consists of five articles published in the Journal on Migration and Human Security and six CMS essays, written by some of Osuna’s close colleagues and friends. Section I provides a brief biography of Juan Osuna’s life, recites his titles and professional accomplishments, and outlines his views on some of the topics covered in the papers. The section draws heavily from two events that book-ended Osuna’s tenure as EOIR Director, which were organized by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS). The first took place on February 16, 20121 and the second on July 18, 2017,2 just before Osuna’s untimely death at the age of 54 on August 15, 2017. This section also includes remembrances and reflections from Osuna’s colleagues at a November 15, 2018 event in Washington, DC, devoted to honoring his legacy.3 Section II summarizes the 11 papers in this collection, which reflect Juan Osuna’s commitment to humanizing the law and its fair application to all. The papers examine and propose ways to strengthen: • The nation’s response to large-scale migration. • The US asylum system. • The removal adjudication system. • Immigration Court backlog reduction efforts. • The treatment of survivors of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. • Due process for immigrants through legal representation. Section III offers a concluding reflection on the rule of law, and Juan Osuna’s legacy in a time of political division and discord.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Rule of Law, Asylum, and Due Process
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. The US Immigration Courts, Dumping Ground for the Nation’s Systemic Immigration Failures: The Causes, Composition, and Politically Difficult Solutions to the Court Backlog

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Richard Millet
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as: • Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes. • The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts. • The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems. • The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets. • The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses. • Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute. • The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). • The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS. • A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns. The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Asylum, and Visa
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. Factsheet: Islam, Immigration, and the American Courts

Author:
Bridge Initiative Team
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Bridge Initiative, Georgetown University
Abstract:
The Naturalization Era (1790–1952) was a defining period for immigration and conceptualizations of citizenship in the United States. During this era, Muslim immigration and naturalization were limited by laws that barred or severely restricted immigration from Muslim-majority areas of the world and court rulings that reserved naturalization rights for white individuals. In the midst of the civil rights movement, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 opened the doors to increased immigration from Muslim-majority countries. In April 2021, the US House of Representatives passed a bill titled the NO BAN Act, which would limit the ability of any US president to impose a travel ban on the basis of religion.
Topic:
History, Immigration, Naturalization, Slavery, Courts, Civil Rights, Nationality, African Americans, and Muslims
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. Current law constraining the President: a series on Congress’s options to limit arms sales and aid to Saudi Arabia, part 2

Author:
Jacques Singer-Emery
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Harvard Journal of Middle Eastern Politics and Policy
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
This is the second of a three-part essay series on the different paths the U.S. Congress might take to limit Washington’s support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. As explained in Part 1 of this series, the Trump administration’s continued support for the Saudi coalition’s war in Yemen has triggered a range of Congressional responses. Although Congress faces challenges in passing new legislation to denounce Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen and its killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the White House’s Saudi policy implicates at least four pieces of existing legislation: the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the War Powers Resolution, the Foreign Assistance Control Act (FAA), and the Leahy Laws. These laws were all passed during the Cold War to curtail the executive’s increasing ability to unilaterally sell arms, supply military aid, and order U.S. troops to assist allies in a theater of war. The executive must abide by these laws. If the President refuses or cuts corners, Congress can bring him to heel directly via impeachment, or indirectly through court orders that force executive branch agencies to halt the restricted activity.
Topic:
Government, War, Law, Courts, and Legislation
Political Geography:
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

7. Constraining U.S. foreign policy by enforcing current law: a series on Congress’s options to limit arms sales and aid to Saudi Arabia, part 3

Author:
Jacques Singer-Emery
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Harvard Journal of Middle Eastern Politics and Policy
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
This is the third of a three-part essay series on the different paths the U.S. Congress might take to limit Washington’s support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Credible allegations of Saudi war crimes and human rights abuses in Yemen should trigger the FAA and Leahy Laws to prevent U.S. aid from reaching the Saudi-led coalition, as discussed in part 2 of this series. However, the U.S. Constitution forbids Congress from unilaterally issuing orders to any executive agency, including the Defense and State Departments. Accordingly, both the Foreign Assistance Control Act (FAA) and the Leahy laws place the onus on the executive to identify and respond to gross violations of human rights. Thus far, the executive has turned a blind eye to the Saudi coalition’s actions. Congress could independently find that Saudi Arabia has engaged in a “consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” by commissioning its own investigations. But if the executive remains unconvinced, Congress only has two options to enforce the FAA and the Leahy laws: impeach the President, or obtain a court order requiring the executive withhold aid and arms pursuant to these laws. The first action is unlikely to occur here, but the second is a viable option. To secure a court order, Congress must show that the executive’s refusal to follow the FAA and the Leahy laws uniquely injures the legislative branch in a way that only the courts can remedy.
Topic:
Government, International Law, Law, War Crimes, Weapons, Courts, and Legislation
Political Geography:
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

8. MESA and the Muslim Ban

Author:
Beth Baron and Judith Tucker
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)
Abstract:
The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) recognized early on that the “Muslim Ban”—so called for its banning of individuals from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States—posed specific threats to its mission and its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual exchange, and the fostering of scholarly research. As the current and past presidents of MESA, we take great pride in the fact that the association decided to take a clear and active stand against all iterations of this ban.
Topic:
Government, Border Control, Courts, Trump, Borders, and Higher Education
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

9. General Principles Regarding the Legal Validity of RUD

Author:
Eric Chung
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This paper examines the legal validity of reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) in both U.S. and international courts. The analysis is based on 46 U.S. cases discussing RUDs as a general category and 26 U.S. cases discussing interpretative understandings and declarations, out of approximately 650 reviewed cases. The analysis is also based on 13 cases from international courts out of approximately 300 reviewed cases, including cases from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) tribunal and arbitral bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter- American Court of Human Rights. In the U.S. cases, RUDs are nearly always recognized as valid. For example, non-self- execution reservations in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are usually treated as legally controlling. The same is true for the reservation to the ICCPR that reserves the right to use capital punishment on juveniles despite treaty prohibitions, as well as interpretative understandings and declarations defining specific terms used in the CAT. U.S. courts have only questioned the validity of RUDs when they were not properly communicated to other state parties, did not support a contrary interpretation, or focused on issues of wholly domestic concern (although the only case on this point was vacated and is not precedential). In addition, individual circuit judges, writing in dissent, have examined whether RUDs violate the separation of powers principle or are inconsistent with the treaty language and international law. With few exceptions, international courts also usually defer to RUDs. The ICJ has indicated that it can invalidate a reservation as incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty pursuant to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. Yet the ICJ has only invalidated a RUD when it determined that a reservation was in fact an interpretative declaration (as opposed to a reservation modifying the state’s legal obligations under the treaty). This has been particularly important in cases where the treaty in question prohibits reservations, such as the UNCLOS. Rules stipulated by a treaty also shape how other courts review RUDs. The European Court of Human Rights, for instance, applies treaty rules to invalidate RUDs that are of a general character or fail to include a statement of the law concerned. Following a number of practices can reduce a RUD’s vulnerability to invalidation in U.S. and international courts. For U.S. courts, a RUD is extremely unlikely to be questioned if it is documented clearly at the time of ratification and communicated to all treaty parties at the time of ratification. For international courts, a RUD is unlikely to be questioned if, in addition to the above factors, it is not counter to the “object and purpose” of a treaty, it is not objected to by other parties, and it is not a reservation masquerading as an interpretive declaration in a situation where reservations are prohibited by the relevant treaty.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, Legal Theory, and Courts
Political Geography:
United States of America and North America

10. Justice Delayed… an Overview of the Options to Speed Up Federal Justice

Author:
Mattia Landoni
Publication Date:
05-2007
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This paper examines the current situation of delay in the federal district courts and proposes ways to reduce it. District Courts are increasingly overwhelmed by the demand for judicial services. This trend is likely to continue in the absence of future action because none of the underlying causes will cease to exist. This article presents a detailed quantitative analysis of the main determinants of judicial services demand, followed by an overview of the options to increase its supply: changing the method to assess the need for judges is worth considering; modifying the procedure—the strategy adopted so far—seems to offer little marginal benefit; and finally, introduction of good management practices and digital information management seems to be an innovative and promising approach.
Topic:
Courts, Justice, and Judiciary
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America