Immigration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Universities ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Deferred Action

This chapter examines Supreme Court cases that were filed over the issue of immigration in Texas. Undocumented immigrants pay in-state tuition at Texas's public universities. The state led the charge against allowing undocumented parents of American citizens to work legally. In 1975, Texas lawmakers passed legislation allowing school districts to deny admission and therefore education to any student who could neither prove lawful residence in the United States nor pay the requisite tuition. It was clear that the legislature wished to deter illegal immigration. The chapter discusses the legal challenge to this policy, focusing on the case Plyler v. Doe, and Texas's lawsuit against the Obama administration over Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), one of two memoranda issued by the president on immigration and deportation.

Two Classic Cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-295
Author(s):  
Michael W. McConnell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
American History ◽  
Logical Structure ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Steel Mills ◽  
American Citizen

This chapter reviews the text, history, and logical structure of Article II, which provides an objective answer on what approach makes any difference in deciding cases without any need to delve into issues of motive or policy. It covers two leading Supreme Court cases that pitted executive against congressional authority and fractured the Court into multiple opinions. It also discusses the Steel Seizure Case, an executive order that seized the United States' steel mills to impose a labor settlement that would avert a strike and keep armaments flowing to America's military. The chapter looks at Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the first and only case in American history in which the Court held that the President is constitutionally entitled to disobey a congressional statute based on his own supervening powers. It explains that passports are formal communications between the State Department and foreign nations, asking that an American citizen be given egress and protection.

The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Religion

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Local School ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Liberty Of Conscience ◽  
Bible Reading

The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decisions not only define constitutional law but vitally affect national policy, has long held both an honored and a controversial place in American life. In no area do its decisions bring it more honor or more controversy than in the field of religion; for, as a member of the First Congress under the Constitution said, “the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. … Thus, the same decision of the Court may be hailed by some as a great landmark in the struggle for religious liberty, and denounced by others as a serious invasion of liberty of conscience. For although it may be pleasant to dream of religion insulated from governmental touch, the dual membership of citizens in the state and in religious bodies insures that conscience and government will touch at some points with inevitable friction, and, to the conscience so touched, it makes little difference whether the governmental hand is that of a local school board, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court has recently been attacked as antireligious, or at least as callous to our religious heritage, because of its decisions invalidating a state-prescribed prayer and state-prescribed Bible reading in public schools. The first of these decisions prompted the more excited outcry, but the two, at first singly and then together, have precipitated a renewed debate about the proper constitutional relationship between the state and religion.

Our Shadow Immigration System

2020 ◽  
pp. 103-130
Author(s):  
Adam B. Cox ◽  
Cristina M. Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Illegal Immigration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Shadow System ◽  
Deferred Action ◽  
United States Today ◽  
System P

This chapter explains how legal and institutional developments in immigration enforcement coincided with the dramatic acceleration of illegal immigration during the final third of the twentieth century. Together, these legal and demographic phenomena gave rise to a massive shadow immigration system that today operates alongside the formal immigration regime. This shadow system has rendered Congress’s intricate, detailed code of immigration rules increasingly less central to defining the content and character of the immigrant population. Instead, the Executive’s enforcement judgments—decisions about whom to target from the pool of deportable immigrants—have taken center stage. Indeed, the rise of the shadow system has effectively delegated vast screening authority to the President and other executive branch officials—authority that has culminated in events as dramatic as President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The large number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States today amplifies the role of enforcement discretion and further entrenches the shadow immigration system.

Exile within the United States

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Brent T. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Agency

The Utah Board of Pardons, an executive agency, releases some Utah prison inmates by an order of "conditional termina tion," which directs the recipient to leave the state immediately and remain away permanently. The Supreme Court of Utah has recently held this order to be valid and constitutional, a ruling attacked by this article, which cites cases wherein rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are violated. Public policy, sound penology, and constitutional law all militate against use of conditional termination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document