Class 6: Current Debates over the IMMIGRATION “Plenary Power”

In recent years, a pressing question is whether constitutional law in immigration cases is moving closer to, or further from, constitutional rules that apply outside the immigration context.

Reading:

• Sessions v. Morales-Santana

• Trump v. Hawaii

• Mapping constitutional claims and tests in “plenary power” cases

As you read, consider the following questions:

• How can Morales-Santana and Trump v. Hawaii be reconciled, if at all?

• Last class, we had two readings of each case: one where the court was doing something in an immigration case that was exceptional, and one where it was reaching an outcome that it might well have reached in a non-immigration case at the time. Can we read Trump v. Hawaii in both sorts of ways?

• According to to the Court, to what types or categories of government decisions does the deferential standard of review laid out in Trump v. Hawaii apply? The decision to admit or exclude a noncitizen? Deportation decisions as well? To all “immigration policies,” however that term is defined?
  

prev/next.

Back to Teaching