SCOTUS limits federal court review in immigration cases
Penn Carey Law School’s Sarah Paoletti says the recent Supreme Court decisions will have a ‘devastating impact on non-citizens and their family members.’
In response to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in two immigration cases that limit federal court review in immigration cases Sarah Paoletti, Practice Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and director of the Transnational Legal Clinic, issued this statement:
Sarah Paoletti, practice professor of law. (Image: Penn Law News)
“The Supreme Court’s two decisions denying challenges to prolonged detention of noncitizens in the United States taken together will have a devastating impact on noncitizens and their family members, while avoiding the ultimate question of whether the U.S. can continue to subject individuals subject to removal proceedings and/or orders of removal to prolonged and arbitrary detention without meaningful judicial review.”
“In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, the Court builds on its precedent in Jennings v. Rodriguez and has effectively foreclosed the ability of individuals to challenge their prolonged detention in hearings whereby the government must justify its ongoing detention, teeing the subject up for a full constitutional challenge.”
“The Court was given the opportunity to address both statutory and constitutional challenges to detention provisions applied to noncitizens that were introduced through the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) … Instead, the Court chose to limit its review and ruling to whether the federal court was authorized to grant class-wide relief in light of court stripping provisions set forth in IIRIRA.”
“In its decision, the Court has further restricted the already exceptionally limited avenues for judicial review and habeas relief available to noncitizens held in situations of prolonged, and arguably arbitrary, detention … and instead such review was only available in limited circumstances in ‘individual’ challenges.”
“As Justice Sotomayor clearly explains in her dissent, the Court’s denial of judicial review on a class-wide basis to persons deemed to be ‘inadmissible,’ have committed certain crimes, or are deemed to be a flight-risk or a ‘risk to the community’ … through its expansive and problematic reading of the court-stripping provisions introduced by IIRIRA, leaves individuals whose challenges may have merit without the opportunity for relief.”
In Senegal, the ambitious Dakar Greenbelt project seeks to create an extensive network of ecological infrastructure in and around the city to sustainably address environmental concerns and enhance urban life. With support from David Gouverneur and Ellen Neises, Ph.D. candidate Rob Levinthal in the Weitzman School of Design led two courses that included a field trip to Dakar, that culminated in students presenting their visions for parts of the Greenbelt.
From a desert to an oasis: Penn engages in ambitious greening effort in the Sahel
Students from the Weitzman School of Design journeyed to Senegal to help with a massive ecological and infrastructural greening effort as part of their coursework. The Dakar Greenbelt aims to combat desertification and promote sustainable urban growth.
As part of an undergraduate course, Penn faculty and students curated an Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition of works from the Neumann family’s extensive collection of modern and contemporary art.
The University’s nexus for technology transfer supports researchers in their innovative efforts, from CAR T to mRNA advancements that have dramatically reshaped the world.
