Washington College of Law
     
Home

Announcements

We're honored to have an article from Volume 63 cited in the Supreme Court's decision, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., holding that disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act.

Congratulations to the Volume 65 Junior Staff!

Federal Circuit Issue

Federal Circuit Issue

The American University Law Review is the only law review in the country to publish an issue exclusively dedicated to the Federal Circuit.  Each year, practitioners and academics provide a synopsis of the Federal Circuit's caseload from the previous year in five major areas of the court's jurisdiction:  patent law, trademark law, government contracts, international trade, and veterans' benefits.  Click here to learn more.

The 2015 Federal Circuit Symposium, "TRENDING IP TOPICS IN 2015:  A Table Talk with Chief Judge Sharon Prost (WCL '79) and Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa," will be held on February 12, 2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM.  

Symposium Issue

Symposium Issue

This year's Annual Symposium is titled "Bordering on Legal Limits?  A Symposium Analyzing the President's Executive Action on immigration."  The keynote speaker will be Stephen Legomsky, the John S. Lehmann University Professor at Washington University Law School and former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Chief Counsel.  It will be held from 9:15 AM to 4:00 PM on Friday, January 30, 2015, at the law offices of Mayer Brown LLP.  Click here for more information.

Current Issue, Volume 64.5

The Status of Nonstatus

By Geoffrey Heeren | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1115

Millions of unauthorized immigrants in the United States have no legal immigration status and live in constant fear of deportation.  There are millions more who do have some sort of status, like lawful permanent residency, asylum, or a nonimmigrant visa.  In between is the netherworld of nonstatus.  Here live noncitizens who possess government documentation but few rights.  They have no pathway to lawful permanent residence or citizenship and cannot receive most public benefits.  If nonstatus is denied or revoked by a prosecutor or bureaucrat, there is no right to a hearing or an appeal.  If the Executive Branch discriminates in how it allocates nonstatus, there may not be a legal right to challenge it.

Read more...
 
The Boundaries of Executive Discretion: Deferred Action, Unlawful Presence, and Immigration Law

By Peter Margulies | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1183

 

If a policy’s wisdom rebutted all concerns about its legality, American law would be a vastly different domain.  However, the Framers’ design places process over policy.  In crafting a government in which each branch can “resist encroachments of the others,” the Framers limited the opportunities for unilateral executive action.  When unilateral actions are myopic, structural design and sound policy happily coincide.  Conversely, the Framers’ architecture of power can elicit frustration when executive action appears wise and benevolent, while Congress’s stubborn inaction suggests it does not understand the full nature of the problem.  While these occasions test the Framers’ design, they do not warrant discarding the Framers’ structural choices.  The tension between President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a case in point.

Read more...
 
D(E)volving Discretion: Lessons from the Life and Times of Secure Communities

By Juliet P. Stumpf | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1259

 

The devolution of immigration authority to line officers, touted as a strength of the Secure Communities program, planted the seeds of the program’s downfall.  Rising from the ashes of Secure Communities, the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) set priorities for removal and also unveiled a potential antidote to the devolution of agency discretion.  This Article details the rise of Secure Communities and describes the devolution of discretion that ultimately undermined the program.  It then spotlights a little-noticed attribute of the PEP—one that addresses head-on Secure Communities’ devolution of enforcement discretion to the lowest level.  PEP attempts to recapture federal discretion to make macro-level policy decisions about immigration enforcement by siphoning discretion up the chain to higher-level federal officials.  This hydraulic experiment in recapturing agency discretion will ultimately determine whether immigration enforcement priorities are doomed to devolution or poised to find a perch on higher ground.

Click here to view this Article

 

 

 
The History of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law

By Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1285

This Article describes the historical role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and connects this history to select executive actions announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014.  “Prosecutorial discretion” in immigration law refers to the decision the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  makes about whether to enforce the immigration law against a person or a group of persons.   When an immigration officer from DHS chooses not to bring legally valid charges against a person because of the person’s family ties in the United States or other equities, prosecutorial discretion is being exercised favorably. 

Click here to view this Article

 

 
NOTE: Bordering Persecution: Why Asylum Seekers Should not be Subject to Expedited Removal

By Alvaro Peralta | 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1303

In 2013, a Guatemalan woman sought protection in the United States because she was being persecuted on account of her ethnicity.  She was harassed, abused, and raped several times before she fled Guatemala.  When she expressed her fear to U.S. border patrol agents, she was told, “[D]on’t talk.  These are all lies. . . .  All Guatemalans are telling the same lies.”  Border patrol agents forced her to sign a removal order and prevented her from speaking to an asylum officer about her fear of persecution.  They ordered her removed from the United States, and she returned to Guatemala where she suffered additional abuse.  She filed various police reports, but authorities dismissed them.  In 2014 she attempted to re-enter the United States, this time with her young son.  After being forced to recount various occasions of rape and abuse next to her son, the asylum officer determined she did not have a credible fear of persecution, thus preventing her from presenting her asylum claim before a judge.

Read more...
 

Welcome!

Thank you for visiting the American University Law Review website!  This site provides a central and convenient location to browse our volumes, preview forthcoming scholarship, and learn more about our publication.  Please send any questions or comments to lawrev@wcl.american.edu.

Founded in 1952, the Law Review is the oldest and largest student-run publication at the Washington College of Law and publishes six issues each year.  The Law Review is consistently ranked among the top fifty law journals in the nation and is the most-cited journal at WCL, according to the Washington and Lee University Law Library.

Rather than focus on a particular area of law, the Law Review publishes articles, essays, and student notes and comments on a broad range of issues.  Recent topics have included the Second Amendment right to bear arms; the Freedom of Information Act; electronic copyright infringement; attorney-client privilege; immigration law; international trade law; and many other timely legal issues.

The Law Review receives approximately 2,500 submissions annually and publishes articles from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned legal thinkers.  The Law Review has published articles or commentary by Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren, as well as Associate Justices Hugo Black, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Arthur Goldberg.

Click here to learn more.

Forthcoming, Vol. 64.6

Mark W. Bennett:  Unspringing the Witness Memory and Demeanor Trap:  What Every Judge and Juror Needs to Know About Cognitive Psychology and Witness Credibility 

Jason Iuliano:  Why Capital Punishment is No Punishment at All

L.A. Powe, Jr.:  Griswold and Its Surroundings:  The 1963, '64, and '65 Terms

Mary-Kaitlin E. Rigney:  Piecemealed out of Existence:  Exploring the D.C. Circuit's Improper Segmentation Analysis in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC and its Implications for United States' Domestic Natural Gas Production

Nancy Turner:  The Young and the Restless:  How the Twenty-Sixth Amendment Could Play a Role in the Current Debate over Voting Laws

Brittany Davidson:  Shoot First, Ask Later:  Constitutional Rights at the Border After Boumediene

Follow Us!

facebook twitter
linkedin Instagram Icon