Courthouse Steps: Sessions v. Morales-Santana Update Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum Friday, June 23, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to his father and Dominican mother, who were unmarried at the time. In 1970, upon his parents’ marriage, he was statutorily “legitimated” and was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1976.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was in effect at the time of Morales-Santana’s birth, limits the ability of an unwed citizen father to confer citizenship on his child born abroad, where the child’s mother is not a citizen at the time of the child’s birth, more stringently than it limits the ability of a similarly situated unwed citizen mother to do the same.
In 2000, Morales-Santana was placed in removal proceedings after having been convicted of various felonies. An immigration judge denied his application for withholding of removal on the basis of derivative citizenship obtained through his father. He filed a motion to reopen in 2010, based on a violation of equal protection and newly obtained evidence relating to his father, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, however, and concluded that Morales-Santana was a citizen as of birth. The Attorney General of the United States then obtained a grant of certiorari from the Supreme Court.
The two questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so.
- Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice; Legal Affairs Fellow, Freedom Works
Ziglar v. Abbasi Decided - Are Government Officials Liable for Damages? Monday, June 26, 03:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the in the District Court.
In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit.
The main question the Supreme Court answered was whether these high-level government officials could be sued for damages under the Bivens precedent. The precedent, created in a 1971 case involving the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created an implied cause of action for any person whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by federal officials. On Monday, June 19 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens precedent to the petitioners, reversing the decision by the Second Circuit and remanding the case.
David Rivkin of Baker Hostelter will join us to discuss the opinion and its significance.
- David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Summer Happy Hour with David Lat Minnesota Lawyers Chapter Monday, June 26, 05:00 PMKieran's Irish Pub
85 N. 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
- David Lat, Founder and Managing Editor of Above the Law
Luncheon with Justice Blackwell Augusta Lawyers Chapter Tuesday, June 27, 12:30 PMPartridge Inn
2110 Walton Way
Augusta, GA 30904
- Justice Keith Blackwell -- Supreme Court of Georgia
Reining in the Administrative State Orange County Lawyers Chapter Wednesday, June 28, 11:30 AMOliver Cafe at Equinox Sports Club
1980 Main Street
Irvine, CA 92614
- Roman Buhler, President, Buhler and Associates & Director, Madison Coalition
The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue Collar Conservatism Long Island Lawyers Chapter Wednesday, June 28, 06:00 PMThe Davenport Press
70 Main Street
Mineola, NY 11501
- Henry Olsen - Ethics and Public Policy Center
Improving the Use of Science in Regulation Administrative Law & Regulation and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Teleforum Thursday, June 29, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
Regulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information. Yet, they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.” Susan Dudley will discuss her forthcoming paper with Marcus Peacock that explores the motivations and institutional incentives that have led to this acrimony. The paper illustrates the problem with a case study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued under the Clean Air Act, and offers recommendations for improving how science is used to inform regulatory policy.
- Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University
Lawyering on Capitol Hill Capitol Hill Event Thursday, June 29, 06:00 PMThe Capitol Hill Club
300 First St SE
Washington, DC 20003
Please join us for a discussion on legal careers on Capitol Hill.
- Robert Parmiter, Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee
- Megan Lacy, Counsel to Chairman Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee
- William Payne, Chief Counsel to Senator Sasse, Senate Judiciary Committee
- Prerak Shah, Chief Counsel to Senator Cruz, Senate Judiciary Committee
Courthouse Steps: Maslenjak v. United States Update Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum Wednesday, July 05, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
At the close of the Bosnian civil war, Divna Maslenjak sought refuge for herself and her family in the U.S. due to fear of persecution regarding their Serbian identity in modern-day Bosnia and the threat of reprisal against her husband, who she claimed had evaded military conscription in the Bosnian Serb militia. After the family was granted refuge and Maslenjak became a U.S. citizen, a U.S. court convicted Maslenjak’s husband Ratko on two counts of falsifying claims regarding Serbian military service on U.S. government documents, since Ratko had in fact served in the Serbian military. When Ratko applied for asylum to avoid deportation, Divna Maslenjak admitted to lying about her husband’s military service and was charged with two counts of naturalization fraud for previously denying that she had given false information to a U.S. official. At her trial, jurors were told that a naturalization fraud conviction could be carried out for false claims in Maslenjak’s application process, even if the claims did not affect whether she was approved. Convicted on both counts, Divna Maslenjack faced two years of probation and lost her citizenship. The Sixth Circuit affirmed her conviction, claiming that naturalization fraud did not require proof of a material false statement.
Please join us as Vikrant Reddy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, discusses the potential impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling and the main question of the case: whether immaterial false statements should be a basis for withdrawing an individual’s citizenship.
- Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Compensation for the Wrongfully Imprisoned? Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum Friday, July 07, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
In recent years, there have been a growing number of instances where people have been freed from prison after it was discovered they were actually not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. Most states provide little or no compensation to such exonerated individuals. Some advocacy groups are pushing for changes. What, if anything, should be done? What kind of compensation are the wrongfully imprisoned entitled to? What kind of financial obligations for these cases can state treasuries bear? What is the perspective of law enforcement on these questions? This Teleforum will explore these and related issues.
- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
- David LaBahn, President and CEO, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys