//  6/8/18  //  Commentary

After the Court handed down Masterpiece Cakeshop, I wrote a quick post on this blog in which I argued that "several aspects of the Court’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop that, if taken seriously, would dispose of several of the government’s arguments in the entry ban litigation (Trump v. Hawaii).  I recently expanded on the post in a piece for the National Law Journal, which you can read here.  I noted the caveat that:

The court is not always consistent in its reasoning.  And there are ways one could distinguish the entry ban case from Masterpiece Cakeshop, though none of them are especially persuasive.  Yes, the entry ban pertains to immigration, but immigration is not a Constitution-free zone.  Likewise, the entry ban challenge involves the president rather than a state official, but the president is bound by the First Amendment to the Constitution just as state officials are. And while some of the president’s animus-laden statements happened before the entry ban, he never disavowed them, and instead implicitly affirmed them by insisting that the entry ban fulfills promises he had made.

 

@LeahLitman


Forced Separation Of Families & Forced To-Term Pregnancies

6/7/18  //  Commentary

The administration’s policy of forcibly separating children from their parents highlights some of the shortcomings with the legal justifications for the administration’s position in Azar v. Garza, the case in which the administration is refusing to allow undocumented women in its custody to obtain abortions.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Jennings v. Rodriguez, Immigration Sins Of the Past, And The Forced Separation Of Families

6/6/18  //  Commentary

Jennings v. Rodriguez underscores how prior administrations, with the agreement of the federal courts, argued for expansive authority over immigration and immigration detentions that were ripe for abuse.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Masterpiece Cakeshop And The Entry Ban

6/4/18  //  Quick Reactions

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Kennedy tells us a lot about why the Court should reject the government's arguments on the First Amendment claim in the entry ban case.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law