Volume 42, Issue 1 (2024)
Precarious Citizenship: Asian Immigrant Naturalization 1918 to 1925
During the height of the exclusion era, when Asian immigrants were prohibited from naturalizing and becoming United States citizens, state and federal court judges around the country naturalized at least 500 Asian immigrant servicepersons and veterans. Between 1918 and 1925, Federal Bureau of Naturalization officials and state and federal court judges had to determine whether the military naturalization provisions enacted in 1918 included the same racial restrictions that the general naturalization provisions included. This Article tells the story of how these officials and judges navigated statutory text, congressional intent, and the reality of Asian immigrant membership in the United States Armed Forces to determine the role that race vis-à-vis military service should play in determining citizenship eligibility. The story of Asian immigrant naturalization between 1918 and 1925 highlights a long-standing question within American citizenship and immigration law: how to measure an applicant’s adoption of and commitment to mainstream American values, norms, and practices. Are there accurate and reliable categories that measure cultural assimilation and allow for cost-effective and efficient decision-making? Alternatively, are categories sufficiently inaccurate and unreliable such that individualized assessments of specific cultural criteria offer the only legitimate approach? Based on administrative memos, state and federal court judicial opinions, and newspaper articles, this article reveals how state and federal court judges struggled with this general question and how the Supreme Court resolved the split that existed across the country. United States naturalization law continues to require category-based decision-making, and it is important that we similarly interrogate those categories to determine the extent to which they accurately and reliably measure the intended naturalization criteria.
Finding Their Feet: How Reentry Court Changes the Path of Returning Citizens in the District of Minnesota
Minneapolis Municipal Construction Contracts: Awarding Methodologies and Affirmative Action
Volume 37 Issue 1 Masthead
Volume 37 Issue 1 Table of Contents
Racial States of Municipal Governance: Policing Bodies and Space for Revenue in North St. Louis County, MO
The Case Against Absolute Judicial Immunity for Immigration Judges
A federal regulation states that immigration hearings shall be open to the public. Courts and scholars also have located a right to observe these proceedings in the First Amendment. And yet immigration judges (IJ) have excluded members of the press and other observers from hearings for no stated legal reasons, thus effectively eliminating public scrutiny of proceedings that affect millions of citizens and non-citizens in the United States. In response to a lawsuit pursuing monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief after an IJ ordered guards to remove a reporter from a federal building, an Eleventh Circuit panel held IJs have absolute judicial immunity against litigation brought by observers. This Article highlights legal errors in the Panel holding of this case of first impression. The Article analyzes the legislative history of policies on contempt powers and Congress’s limits on IJ powers, as well as offers quantitative and qualitative findings on the efficacy of internal agency misconduct complaint investigations. The statutory nature of IJ powers and the absence of any remedy for damages caused by conduct in excess of legal functions suggest a policy and legal case against absolute judicial immunity for IJs.