The immigration battle in American courts

The Immigration Battle in American Courts

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 1-266

  Law, Anna O ^a  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925105680     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511750991     Document Type: Book

References (301)

1. Leonard Dinnerstein, “The Supreme Court and the Rights of Aliens,” reprinted from This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, published by Project’87 of the American Political Science Association and American Historical Association, Fall 1985 (available at www.apsa.com/imgtest/SupremeCourtAlienRight.pdf).
2. Robert C. Lieberman, “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change,” American Political Science Review 96, No. 4 (2003):697-712, 699.
3. Rogers Smith, “Political Jurisprudence, The ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” American Political Science Review, 82, No. 1 (March 1988):89-108, 91.
4. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 78.
5. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 78. The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Penguin, 1961), 465-471.
6. Barry Friedman, “The Importance of Being Positive: The Nature and Function of Judicial Review” (The William H. Taft Lecture in Constitutional Law), 72 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1257 (2004);
7. Barry Friedman, “Dialogue and Judicial Review,” 91 Michigan Law Review 577 (1993);
8. Michael Klarman, From Civil Rights to Jim Crow: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006);
9. Howard Gillman, The Votes That Counted: How the Supreme Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
10. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 160-61.
11. Peter Schuck, “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” 84 Columbia Law Review 1 (1984).
12. Martin Shapiro, Law and Politics in the Supreme Court: New Approaches to Political Jurisprudence (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).
13. Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994);
14. Lucy E. Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill: The University of Carolina Press, 1995)
15. Ian Haney-Lopez, White by Law: the Legal Construction of Race (New York: New York University Press, 1995);
16. “Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: Ideology, and Publication in the Ninth Circuit Asylum Cases,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 73:817 (2005)
17. “Judicial Ideology and the Decision to Publish: Voting and Publication Patterns in the Ninth Circuit Asylum Cases,” Judicature 89:212 (2006).
18. Daniel Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of American Immigration Reform (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)
19. Wayne Cornelius et al., Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004);
20. Peter Andreas, Border Games: Policing the United States/Mexico Divide (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001);
21. Desmond King, The Liberty of Strangers: The Making of the American Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004);
22. Aristide Zolberg, A Nation By Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (New York: Harvard University Press, 2006).
23. Stephen H. Legomsky, “Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power,” The Supreme Court Review 255 (1985);
24. Hiroshi Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century of Plenary Power: Phantom Constitutional Norms and Statutory Interpretation,” 100 Yale Law Journal 545 (1990);
25. Peter H. Schuck, “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” Columbia Law Review 84:1 (1984)
26. Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
27. Stephen Legomsky, Immigration and the Judiciary: Law and Politics in Britain and America (New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon, 1987);
28. Peter Schuck and Theodore Hsien Wang, “Continuity and Change: Patterns of Litigation in Immigration, 1979-1990,” 45 Stanford Law Review 115 (November 1992);
29. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, “Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,” Stanford Law Review 295 (2007).
30. Barry Friedman, “Taking Law Seriously,” 266
31. Martin Shapiro, Law and Politics in the Supreme Court, 3, 6.
32. Orren and Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development, 3.
33. Paul Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 104.
34. Orren and Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development, 112
35. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “The Study of American Political Development,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003), 748
36. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a ‘New Institutionalism,’” in Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jillson, eds., The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches & Interpretations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994).
37. Paul Frymer, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).
38. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, David Martin, and Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 6th ed. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West Publishing, 2008), 268-69.
39. Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 268-75.
40. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and David Martin, “Ashcroft's Immigration Threat,” Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2002, A21.
41. Philip G. Schrag, “The Summary Affirmances Proposal of the Board of Immigration Appeals,” 12 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 531, 534 (1998).
42. The Brookings Institution, “Immigration and the Courts,” 8-9.
43. “Workload of the Courts,” The Third Branch: Newsletter of the Federal Courts, January 2009 (available at http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2009-01/article02.cfm).
44. Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 291-93.
45. Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 292.
46. Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 293.
47. Lenni B. Benson, “Making Paper Dolls: How Restrictions on Judicial Review and the Administrative Process Increase Immigration Cases in Federal Courts,” 51 New York Law School Law Review 37 (2006/07), esp. 42-3.
48. Aleinikoff, Martin, Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy, 293.
49. William Frey, “The United States Population: Where the Immigrants Are,” http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0699/ijse/frey.htm.
50. Christian Fritz, “A Nineteenth Century ‘Habeas Corpus Mill’: The Chinese Before the Federal Courts in California,” 32 American Journal of Legal History, No. 4 (Oct. 1988);
51. Christian Fritz, Federal Justice - The California Court of Ogden Hoffman, 1851-1891 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991);
52. David C. Frederick, Rugged Justice: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the American West, 1891-1941 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994)
53. Frederick, Rugged Justice, 60.
54. Frederick, Rugged Justice, 52.
55. Stephen H. Legomsky, “Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power,” 84 The Supreme Court Review 255 (1984);
56. Stephen Legomsky, “Ten More Years of Plenary Power: Immigration, Congress, and the Court,” 22 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 925 (1995).
57. Schuck, “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” 1.
58. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State and American Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press, 2002), 16.
59. Salyer, Law as Harsh as Tigers, 117-216.
60. Stephen Legomsky, “Symposium: Restructuring Federal Courts: Immigration: Fear and Loathing in Congress and the Courts: Immigration and Judicial Review,” 78 Texas Law Review 1615, 1616, 1619 (June 2000).
61. Legomsky, “Immigration Law and the Principle of Congressional Plenary Power,” 255.
62. Solomon Moore and Ann M. Simmons, “Immigrant Pleas Crushing Federal Appellate Courts,” Los Angeles Times, 2 May 2005, A1
63. Bob Egelko, “Plan to Unify Immigrant Appeals: Sen. Specter's Provision to Centralize Jurisdiction Draws Fire,” San Francisco Chronicle, 13 March 2006, A1
64. Zachary Coile, “A Quiet Move in House to Split the 9th Circuit,” San Francisco Chronicle, 30 Nov. 2005, A1
65. Egelko, “Plan to Unify Immigrant Appeals,” A1.
66. David Klein, Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
67. Jonathan Cohen, Inside Appellate Courts: The Impact of Court Organization and Judicial Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 18-19.
68. Oisin Tansey, “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability Sampling,” PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. XL, No. 4 (Oct. 2007): 765.
69. Anna Law, “In Search of a Methodology and Tales from the Academic Crypt” in Researching Migration: Stories from the Field, Louis DeSipio, Manuel Garcia y Griego, and Sherrie Koussoudji, eds. (New York: Social Science Research Council Publications, 2007), 63-80 (available at http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/42451838-264A-DE11-AFAC-001CC477EC70/).
70. Mark Graber, “Legal, Strategic or Legal Strategy: Deciding to Decide During the Civil War and Reconstruction” in Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, eds., The Supreme Court & American Political Development (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2006), 35.
71. Robert Gordon, “Critical Legal Studies Symposium: Critical Legal Histories,” 36 Stanford Law Review 57 (1984)
72. Michael McCann, “How the Supreme Court Matters in American Politics,” in Howard Gillman and Cornell Clayton, eds., The Supreme Court in American Politics - New Institutionalist Interpretations (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1999), 81.
73. Legomsky, “Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power,” 6
74. Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century of Plenary Power,” 545
75. Sheri Berman, “Ideas, Norms, and Culture in Political Analysis,” Comparative Politics 33 (2001): 237.
76. Phillip Bobbit, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 6.
77. Bobbit, Constitutional Fate, 8.
78. Friedman, “Taking Law Seriously,” 266.
79. Michael McCann, “How the Supreme Court Matters in American Politics,” 81.
80. Bobbit, Constitutional Fate, 8.
81. Hiroshi Motomura, “The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights.” 92 Columbia Law Review 1625- 1704 (1992).
82. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 30.
83. Walter Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), 14-15
84. R. Shep Melnick, Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994), 6.
85. Gordon, “Critical Legal Studies Symposium: Critical Legal Histories,” 102.
86. Smith “Political Jurisprudence,” 98
87. Gordon, “Critical Legal Studies Symposium,” 88.
88. Gordon, “Critical Legal Studies Symposium,” 90.
89. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 80.
90. Felix Frankfurter and James Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan, 1927; reprinted 2007);
91. Stanley Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968);
92. Maeva Marcus, ed., Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Essays on the Judiciary Act of 1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992);
93. William M. Wiecek, “The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1875” in 13 American Journal of Legal History 1969: 233-59;
94. Charles Gardener Geyh, When Courts & Congress Collide - The Struggle for Control of America's Judicial System (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007).
95. rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 2005) (available at www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Creat3rd.pdf/$File/Creat3rd.pdf).
96. Wheeler and Harrison, “Establishing the Federal Judicial System,” 2.
97. Melancton Smith, “Anti-Federalist 1” in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 113
98. Melancton Smith, “Anti-Federalist 20” in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 183.
99. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist 78” in Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin, 1961), 469.
100. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist 78” in Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin, 1961), 465
101. Melancton Smith, “Anti-Federalist 15” in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 185.
102. Melancton Smith, “Anti-Federalist 12” in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 172.
103. Melancton Smith, “Anti-Federalist 14” in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 180.
104. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist 81” in Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin, 1961), 486.
105. J. Woodford Howard, Jr., Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1981), 5.
106. Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, xxi.
107. Marcus and Wexler, “The Judiciary Act of 1789,” 17.
108. Marcus and Wexler, “The Judiciary Act of 1789,” 18.
109. Gerald Casper, “The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Judicial Independence,” in Maeva Marcus, ed., Origins of the Federal Judiciary, 286
110. Charles Gardener Geyh, When Courts & Congress Collide: The Struggle for Control of America's Judicial System (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 46.
111. Geyh, When Courts & Congress Collide, 32.
112. Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, 9.
113. Wheeler and Harrison, “Creating the Federal Judicial System,” 4.
114. Wheeler and Harrison, “Creating the Federal Judicial System,” 6.
115. Wheeler and Harrison, “Creating the Federal Judicial System,” 6-8.
116. Marcus and Wexler, “The Judiciary Act of 1789,” 30.
117. Marcus and Wexler, “The Judiciary Act of 1789,” 27.
118. O’Brien, Storm Center, 153.
119. Wheeler and Harrison, Creating the Federal Judicial System, 18.
120. Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, 99-100, 103.
121. Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, 255.
122. Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, 258.
123. Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994), 2-3.
124. Salyer, Laws as Harsh as Tigers, xvi.
125. Salyer, Laws as Harsh as Tigers, 70
126. Salyer, Laws as Harsh as Tigers, 40.
127. McClain, In Search of Equality, 205.
128. Salyer, Laws as Harsh as Tigers, xv.
129. Christian G. Fritz, Federal Justice: The California Court of Ogden Hoffman - 1851-1891 (Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press, 1991).
130. Christian G. Fritz, “A Nineteenth Century ‘Habeas Corpus Mill’: The Chinese Before the Federal Courts in California,” American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), 347-72.
131. Fritz, Federal Justice, 247-48.
132. Fritz, Federal Justice, 248.
133. Peter Andreas, Border Games: Policing the United States - Mexico Divide (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 3.
134. Calavita, Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the INS (New York: Routledge Press, 1992), 33.
135. Calavita, Inside the State, 111-140.
136. David Riemers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
137. Andreas, Border Games, x, 3.
138. Andreas, Border Games, 8-9.
139. Andreas, Border Games, 9, 148.
140. Andreas, Border Games, 147.
141. Migration Policy Institute, “Immigration Enforcement Spending Since IRCA,” November 2005, No. 10, pg. 8 (available at http: www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/FactSheet_Spending.pdf).
142. Margot Mendelson, Shayna Strom, and Michael Wishnie, “Collateral Damage: An Examination of ICE's Fugitive Operations Program,” 3. This is a report prepared under the guidance of Muzaffar Christi and Doris Meisner for the Migration Policy Institute, February 2009 (available at www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/NFOP_Feb09.pdf).
143. Mendelson et al., “Collateral Damage,” 7.
144. Spencer S. Hsu, “Immigration Priorities Questioned; Report Says Focus on Deporting Criminal Apparently Shifted,” Washington Post, February 5, 2009, A2.
145. Mendelson et al., “Collateral Damage,” 19.
146. Wayne Cornelius, “Impacts of Border Enforcement on Unauthorized Mexican Migration to the United States,” Sept. 26, 2006 (available at http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Cornelius/).
147. Julia Preston, “As Pace of Deportation Rises, Illegal Families Are Digging In,” New York Times, May 1, 2007, A1.
148. Julie Preston, “U.S. Shifts Strategy on Illicit Work by Illegal Immigrants,” New York Times, July 2, 2009, A1
149. Spencer S. Hsu, “U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails: Obama Administration's Enforcement Push Could Lead to Sharp Increase in Deportation,” Washington Post, May 19, 2009, A1.
150. Solomon Moore and Ann M. Simmons, “Immigrant Pleas Crushing Federal Appellate Courts,” Los Angeles Times, May 2, 2005 (“Tougher enforcement of immigration laws has also funneled more cases into the system”), 2.
151. J. Woodford Howard, Jr., Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981).
152. “Immigration Appeals Swamp Federal Courts” by Claire Cooper and Emily Bazar in the Sacramento Bee, September 5, 2004, A1
153. Jerry L. Marsaw, Due Process in the Administrative State (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 25-6.
154. Kitty Calavita, Inside the State: The Bracero Program, 9.
155. Richard J. Richardson and Kenneth N. Vines, The Politics of Federal Courts (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 149.
156. Richardson and Vines, The Politics of Federal Courts, 128-29.
157. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes a ‘New Intuitionalism,’” in Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jilson, eds., The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations (New York: Westview Press, 1993), 311-30
158. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 112.
159. Ronald Khan and Ken Kersch, “Introduction,” in Ronald Khan and Ken Kersch, eds., The Supreme Court & American Political Development (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2006), 17-18.
160. McNollgast, “Politics and the Courts: A Positive Theory of Judicial Doctrine and the Rule of Law,” 68 Southern California Law Review 1631 (1995).
161. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, “The Judiciary Department,” Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788. (Original capitalization.)
162. Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1998), 12. (Emphasis in original.)
163. Epstein and Knight, The Choices Justices Make, 12.
164. Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, and Christopher J.W. Zorn, “Sophisticated Voting and Gate-Keeping in the Supreme Court,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 15(3):549-72
165. Tracey George, “The Dynamics and Determinations of the Decision to Grant En Banc Review,” 74 Washington Law Review 213-74 (1999);
166. H.W. Perry, Jr., Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991);
167. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy.
168. Walter Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), 31.
169. Barry Friedman notes in “Taking Law Seriously,” Perspectives in Political Science 4, No.2 (2006), 265
170. Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Wendy L. Martinek, “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” American Journal of Political Science 48: 123-37 (2004);
171. David Klein's Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000);
172. Frank Cross and Emerson Tiller, “Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals,” 107 Yale Law Journal 2155-76 (1999).
173. Perry, Deciding to Decide, 198-212.
174. Burton M. Atkins, “Decision Making Rules and Judicial Strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals,” The Western Political Quarterly 25, 4 (1972): 626-42, 626-7.
175. Anna O. Law and Margaret S. Williams, “Understanding Judicial Decision Making in Immigration Cases at the Courts of Appeals.” Paper prepared for presentation at the 2009 Midwest Political Science Association Convention in Chicago, IL, April 2-5, 2009 (available at http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/6/3/8/1/p363814_index.html).
176. R. Shep Melnick, Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994), 6.
177. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 14.
178. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy, 14-15.
179. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy, 14.
180. Murphy, Between the Lines, 40.
181. Melnick, Between the Lines, 28-31.
182. Friedman, “Taking Law Seriously,” 268.
183. Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court (9th ed.), (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2007), 100-101.
184. John P. McIver, “Scaling Judicial Decision: The Panel Decisionmaking Process of the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” American Journal of Political Science 20, No. 4 (1976): 749-61, 749.
185. Melnick, Between the Lines, 24-5.
186. Melnick, Between the Lines, 8.
187. Frank B. Cross, Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2007), 101.
188. J. Woodford Howard, Jr., Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), 163-65.
189. Law and Williams, “Understanding Judicial Decision Making in Immigration Cases at the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 21
190. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy, 24.
191. Daniel Kanstroom, “The Better Part of Valor: The Real ID Act, Discretion, and the ‘Rule’ of Immigration Law,” 51 New York Law School Law Review 162-163;
192. Daniel Kanstroom, “Surrounding the Hole in the Doughnut: Discretion and Deference in U.S. Immigration Law,” 71 Tulane Law Review 703 (1997).
193. Henry J. Friendly, “Indiscretion About Discretion” in 31 Emory Law Journal 747-54 (citing Henry Hart and Albert Saks's The Legal Process, unpublished text).
194. Kanstroom, “The Better Part of Valor,” 163.
195. Melnick, Between the Lines, 239-40.
196. Richard Posner, “Judicial Review of Immigration Judges.” Speech before the Chicago Bar Association, Chicago, IL, April 21, 2008.
197. Kanstroom “The Better Part of Valor,” 197.
198. Kanstroom, “The Better Part of Valor,” 169.
199. Richard A. Posner, Federal Courts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 97, 105, 107.
200. John R. B. Palmer, Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, and Elizabeth Cronin, “Why Are So Many People Challenging Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions in Federal Court? An Empirical Analysis of the Recent Surge in Petition for Review,” 20 Georgetown Immigration L.J. 1 (2005), 6.
201. Claire Cooper and Emily Bazar, “Immigration Appeals Swamp Federal Courts,” Sacramento Bee, Sept. 5, 2004, A1
202. Solomon Moore and Ann M. Simmons, “Immigrant Pleas Crushing Federal Appellate Courts: As Caseloads Skyrocket, Judges Blame the Work Done by the Board of Immigration Appeals,” Los Angeles Times, May 2, 2005, 1
203. Tom Perotta, “Immigration Appeals Surge in Second Circuit,” New York Law Journal, Nov. 4, 2004, at 1.
204. Lisa Getter and Jonathan Peterson, “Speedier Rate of Deportation Rulings Assailed,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2003.
205. Cathy Catterson, “Challenges in Appellate Caseload and Its Processing,” 48 Arizona Law Review 287-299, 294
206. Palmer, Yale-Loehr, and Cronin, “Why Are So Many People Challenging Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions in Federal Court?,” 6.
207. John Palmer, “Symposium on Immigration Appeals and Judicial Review: The Second Circuit's “New Asylum Seekers”: Responses to an Expanded Immigration Docket,” 55 Catholic University Law Review 965-68 (2006).
208. Migration Policy Institute Staff, The New Century: Immigration and the U.S.United States (available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=283).
209. Palmer, Yale-Loehr, and Cronin, “Why Are So Many People Challenging Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions in Federal Court?,” 7.
210. Stephen H. Legomsky, “Learning to Live with Unequal Justice: Asylum and the Limits to Consistency,” 60 Stanford Law Review 413 (2007).
211. Stephen H. Legomsky, “An Asylum Seeker's Bill of Rights in a Non-Utopian World,” 14 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 619-622 (2000).
212. Getter and Peterson, “Speedier Rate of Deportation Rulings Assailed,” 4.
213. Getter and Peterson, “Speedier Rate of Deportation Rulings Assailed,” 2.
214. Dorsey and Whitney, LLP. “Study Conducted for: The American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy, Practice, Pro Bono RE: Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management,” October 2003, 40.
215. Jaya, Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, “Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication,” 60 Stanford Law Review (2007): 295-408 at 359-60.
216. Philip G. Schrag, “The Summary Affirmances Proposal of the Board of Immigration Appeals,” 531, 534-35.
217. Getter and Peterson, “Speedier Rate of Deportation Rulings Assailed,” 2.
218. Palmer, Yale-Loehr, and Cronin, “Why Are So Many People Challenging Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions in the Federal Courts?,” 38.
219. Cathy Catterson, “Changes in the Appellate Caseload,” in 48 Arizona Law Review 287-299, 295.
220. Lenni Benson, “Making Paper Dolls,” 64-8
221. Solomon Moore and Ann M. Simmons, “Immigrant Pleas Crushing Federal Appellate Courts,” at 1.
222. Oakley and Thompson, “Screening and Delegation,” in Arthur Hellman, ed., Restructuring Justice: the Innovations of the Ninth Circucit and the Future of the Federal Courts (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 110.
223. Penelope Pether, “Sorcerers, Not Apprentices: How Judicial Clerks and Staff Attorneys Impoverish U.S. Law,” 39 Arizona State Law Journal 1, 15 (2007).
224. Arthur D. Hellman, “The 2005 National Conference on Appellate Justice: Conference Report: The View from the Trenches: A Report on the Breakout Sessions at the 2005 National Conference on Appellate Justice,” 8 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 141-205 (2005) at 185.
225. John B. Oakley, “The Screening of Appeals: The Ninth Circuit's Experience in the Eighties and Innovations for the Nineties,” Brigham Young University Law Review 859 (1991), at 876-907.
226. Andrew P. Gordon, “Special Feature: Ninth Circuit Riding Wave of Immigration Appeals,” 14 Nevada Lawyer 8-9 (2006), 9 July 2006.
227. Bob Egelko, “Plan to Unify Immigration Appeals: Senator Specter's Provisions to Centralize Jurisdiction Draws Fire,” The San Francisco Chronicle, March 13, 2006, A1
228. Ralph Linderman, “Federal Circuit/Jurisdiction: Proposal to Shift Immigration Appeals to Federal Circuit Draws Fire,” Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Vol. 71, No. 1760, March 10, 2006, 488.
229. Egelko, “Plan to Unify Immigrant Appeals,” A1.
230. Hellman, Restructuring Justice, 228-32 and 356-57.
231. Jonathan D. Glater, “Lawmakers Trying Again to Divide the Ninth Circuit,” The New York Times, June 19, 2005.
232. H.W. Perry, Deciding to Decide (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
233. Judge Robert A. Katzmann, “The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor,” Orison S. Marden Lecture of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, February 28, 2007 (available at: http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/marden9.pdf).
234. John T. Noonan, Jr., “Symposium on Immigration Appeals and Judicial Review: Immigration Law 2006,” 55 Catholic University Law Review 905-912 (2006).
235. Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag, “Refugee Roulette” at 326.
236. Sandra Hernandez, “‘LA 8’ Judge Steps Down and Speaks Out,” Daily Journal, February 23, 2007, pg. 1 (available at http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Einhorn.pdf).
237. The Brookings Institution, “Immigration and the Courts,” February 20, 2009, 8.
238. Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag, “Refugee Roulette” at 332.
239. Richard Posner, “Judicial Review of Immigration Judges,” speech before the Chicago Bar Association, Chicago, IL, April 21, 2008.
240. Adam Liptak, “U.S. Appeals Courts Scold Immigration Judges - Decisions Called Biased and Incoherent,” New York Times, December 26, 2005
241. Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag, “Refugee Roulette” at 383.
242. Paul Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 157-60.
243. Peter Schuck, “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” 84 Columbia Law Review 1-90 (1984), 1.
244. Charles A. Miller, “The Forest of Due Process of Law: The American Constitutional Tradition,” in NOMOS XVIII: Due Process (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 3.
245. John Orth, Due Process of Law: A Brief History (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2003), 102.
246. J. Roland Pennocock, “Introduction,” in NOMOS XVIII: Due Process (New York: New York University Press, 1977), xvi.
247. Thomas C. Grey, “Procedural Fairness and Substantive Rights,” in NOMOS XVIII: Due Process (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 184, 187.
248. J. Roland Pennocock, “Introduction,” xxix.
249. Grey, “Procedural Fairness and Substantive Rights,” 182-205
250. Rodney L. Mott, Due Process of Law - A Historical and Analytical Treatise of the Principles and Methods Followed by the Courts in the Application of the Concept of “The Law of the Land” (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers, 1926);
251. Hannis Taylor, Due Process of Law and the Equal Protection of the Laws - A Treatise Based, in the Main, on the Cases in Which the Supreme Court of the United States Has Granted or Denied Relief upon One Ground or the Other (Chicago: Callaghan and Company, 1917);
252. Taylor, Due Process of Law and the Equal Protection of the Laws, 14-15.
253. Hannis Taylor, Due Process of Law and the Equal Protection of the Laws, 19-48
254. Rodney L. Mott, Due Process of Law, 143-67.
255. Orth, Due Process of Law, 13.
256. Alexander Saxton, The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995)
257. Elmer C. Sandmeyer, The Anti Chinese Movement in California (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1991)
258. Stuart C. Miller, The Unwelcome Immigrant (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
259. Christian G. Fritz, Federal Justice - The California Court of Ogden Hoffman, 1851- 1891 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), 224.
260. Stephen Legomsky, “The New Path of Immigration Law: Asymmetric Incorporation of Criminal Justice Norms,” in 64 Washington and Lee Law Review 469-511 (2008):
261. Legomsky, “The New Path of Immigration Law,” 512.
262. Daniel Kanstroom, “Deportation, Social Control, and Punishment: Some Thoughts about Why Hard Cases Make Bad Laws,” 113 Harvard Law Review 1890, 1893-1894 (2000).
263. Legomsky, “The New Path of Immigration Law,” 515-16.
264. Won Kidane, “Revisiting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Applicable in Adversarial Administrative Deportation Proceedings: Lessons from the Department of Labor Rules of Evidence,” 57 Catholic University Law Review 93 (2008).
265. Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1997), 212.
266. Richard Stewart, “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” 88 Harvard Law Review 1667-1813 (1985), 1671-76.
267. Jerry L. Marsaw, Due Process in the Administrative State (New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press, 1985), 18.
268. Hiroshi Motomura, Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
269. Marsaw, Due Process in the Administrative State, 25.
270. Stephen Legomsky, Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy (4th ed.) (New York: Foundation Press, 2005), 162.
271. E. Rubin, “Due Process and the Administrative State,” 1132
272. Rubin, “Due Process and the Administrative State,” 1056.
273. Thomas Alexander Aleinikoff, David A. Martin, Hiroshi Motomura, and Maryellen Fullerton, Immigration and Citizenship Process and Policy (6th ed.) (New York: Thomson West Publishing Group, 2003), 1046.
274. Stephen Legomsky, Immigration and the Judiciary: Law and Politics in Britain and America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon, 1987), 212.
275. Rubin, “Due Process and the Administrative State,” 1055-56.
276. Hiroshi Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century of Plenary Power: Phantom Constitutional Norms and Statutory Interpretation,” 100 Yale Law Journal 545-547 (1990);
277. “The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights,” 92 Columbia Law Review 1626-1704 (1992).
278. Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century,” 560.
279. Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century,” 548.
280. Motomura, “Immigration Law After a Century,” 565.
281. Motomura, “The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law,” 1628.
282. James Gibson, “Judges’ Role Orientation, Attitudes and Decisions: An Interactive Model,” American Political Science Review 72:911-24 (1978).
283. Motomura, “The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law,” 1646.
284. Duker, A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus, and Freedman, Habeas Corpus: Rethinking the Great Writ of History (2001)
285. Aleinikoff, “Detaining Plenary Power” (2002)
286. Neuman, “Jurisdiction and the Rule of Law After the 1996 Act,” 113 Harvard Law Review 1963-98 (2002).
287. David Cole, “No Clear Statement: An Argument for Preserving Judicial Review of Removal Decisions,” 12 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 427 (1998), 429.
288. Neuman, “Habeas Corpus, Executive Detention and the Removal of Aliens,” 1988.
289. Gerald Neuman, “Habeas Corpus, Executive Detention and the Removal of Aliens,” 98 Columbia Law Review 961-1066 (1998)
290. “Jurisdiction and the Rule of Law After the 1996 Immigration Act,” 113 Harvard Law Review 1963-98 (2000).
291. David Cole, “Congress and the Courts: Habeas Corpus and Due Process as Limits on Congress's Control of Federal Jurisdiction,” 86 Georgetown Law Journal 2481 (1998).
292. Legomsky, Immigration and Refugee Policy (4th ed.), 741.
293. Henry M. Hart, Jr., “The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic,” 66 Harvard Law Review 1362, 390 (1953).
294. Daniel Kanstroom, “St. Cyr or Insincere, the Strange Quality of Supreme Court Victory,” 16 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 413 (2002).
295. Dennis E. Curtis and Judith Resnik, “Images of Justice,” 96 Yale Law Journal 1727-72 (1987)
296. Kitty Calavita, Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the INS (New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1992);
297. Gil Loescher and Jon Scanlon, Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America's Half-Open Door, 1945 - Present (New York: Free Press, 1998).
298. Paul Frymer, Black and Blue: The Labor Movement and the Decline of the Democratic Party (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 129.
299. Gerald Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
300. John Dinan, Keeping the People's Liberties: Legislators, Citizens, and Judges as Guardians of Rights (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1998), 170.
301. Ronald Kahn, “Institutional Norms and Supreme Court Decision-Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion” in Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutional Approaches (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 176.