Author: Hunter Steach

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

If anyone has followed the political cycle over the last several years, it is apparent that transgender rights have become a polarizing topic area between both sides of the aisle. Particularly when it comes to biological men competing in women’s sports, the issue gets even more contentious. Just last Thursday, the justices issued an unsigned order declaring that the state of West Virginia, at least not yet, can’t bar transgender girls from playing on women’s sports teams at the secondary school and college levels. Prior to the order, West Virginia requested the justices to clarify whether the state be able enforce the law while it is being challenged presently in lower courts.

This case isn’t a traditionally argued SCOTUS case, at least to this point. This order was issued as part of the Court’s emergency docket due to its decision being necessarily imminent. While still in the lower courts, the likelihood of this case reaching the high court one day are extremely high.

The origin of this case starts when in April 2021, the West Virginia state legislature passed H.B. 3293 – effectively banning transgender athletes from competing in sports not of their assigned sex at both the secondary school and intercollegiate levels. A transgender girl, initialed B.P.J., immediately sued the state declaring that the law was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection clause.

Fast-forward to July 2021, and U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ordered that the state not be able to enforce the law while it remained in litigation – thus B.P.J. was able to continue competing on behalf of her newly identified sex. In January 2023, Goodwin issued a decision on the case – ruling in favor of the state of West Virginia. His ruling effectively disallowed for B.P.J. and any other West Virginia students from competing under any sex opposite than the one assigned at birth.

Shortly thereafter, B.P.J. filed an appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which by a 2-1 vote, decided to put Judge Goodwin’s order on hold. Subsequently, the state of West Virginia filed a request on March 9th asking the Supreme Court whether the state could enforce the passed legislation while still being litigated on appeal.

Justices Alito and Thomas both dissented in the decision by the Court to uphold the 4th Circuit’s order and block the state from enforcing the legislation. Alito contends that the 4th Circuit provides no clear justification for its order to bar the state from enforcing the law. He points out the discrepancy of the state waiting 18 months following the initial injunction to file for emergency relief, but he declares that the justices must not factor this component into their decision. Being that the district court also granted the state summary judgment in the case, that is deciding that the state court enforce the law, Alito doesn’t believe that the 4th Circuit has the means or authority to essentially null that decision without clear justification.

This case will certainly reach the high court in one of the Court’s near future terms and it is abundantly clear that the case will have consequential repercussions on an intensely polarizing political issue. But, for now, the state of West Virginia receives a temporary loss as it cannot enforce its law until all litigation/appeals have been exasperated and a ruling made (most certainly after the case reaches SCOTUS).

Sources:

Court allows West Virginia transgender girl to continue to participate in girls’ sports

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a800_e1p3.pdf

Lora v. U.S.

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

Background:

Petitioner: Efrain Lora

Respondent: United States

Petitioner Efrain Lora and three co-defendants operated a cocaine enterprise in the Bronx. Lora and his counterparts were charged with conspiring to murder a rival drug lord who had been previously threatening Lora over drug territory. A federal grand jury stepped in shortly thereafter, charging Lora with three counts including: aiding and abetting the use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime causing the death of a person, a drug trafficking conspiracy charge, and a charge for causing an intentional killing in furtherance of that conspiracy. Eventually, Lora was found to be guilty on all three counts by a jury and the district court sentenced him to a 5-year imprisonment for the first charge and 25 years for the second two charges.

The kick in this case involves the nature in which the sentences were issued to Lora. Rather than issuing him concurrent sentences, meaning that Lora would serve the sentences for all charges at the same time, the district court ordered Lora to serve his sentences on a consecutive basis. Consecutive sentencing involves serving one of the sentences first before serving the second. In this case, Lora’s total amount of prison time would be extended from 25 years to 30 years under consecutive sentencing.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.”

The question facing the bench is whether federal criminal sentencing law requires that an individual convicted and sentenced for a crime related to a drug-trafficking murder serve consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences.

Oral arguments for this case were given on March 28th. An opinion from the court is pending.

Arguments:

Petitioners argue under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1) (“A person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall if the killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life”) that a judge, at their discretion, may issue a concurrent or consecutive sentence to a defendant. Petitioner claims that subsection (j) does not apply to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) stated above because Congress created subsection (j) as a “new subsection” separate from subsection (c).

Respondents argue that the bench should harmonize subsections (j) and (c). They claim that subsection (j)(1) provides enhanced penalties for the most serious subsection (c) offenders. During oral arguments, counsel for the respondent Erica L. Ross repeatedly drew links between subsections (j) and (c). Justices challenged her contention that there was a clear connection between the subsections and asked questions related to if a subsection (j) charge must adhere to the sentencing rules in subsection (c), including the mandate of consecutive sentences.

The high court will decide this case in the coming weeks, and it will be interesting to see if the bench takes a more textualist approach in the majority opinion or if they establish that the different subsections are unique and severed from one another.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-49

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lora-v-united-states/

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2023/02/22/22-49_lora_v._usa.pdf

Issue Brief Introduction

il-LEGAL Immigration: Putting the Law Back Into U.S. Immigration Policy

Etienne Tumulis just wants an opportunity for his family in the United States. A Haitian citizen, Tumulis currently resides in a shelter in Reynosa, Mexico waiting to be granted asylum status by the U.S. government. The shelter he is staying in has no signal, which throws him a major curveball. Migrants are required to use a smartphone app called C.B.P. One to complete an application relevant to achieving asylum status. As Tumulis can’t receive a signal at the shelter, he must travel into the city center of Reynosa to foster any chance of receiving reception.

Reynosa is one of the most dangerous cities in Mexico. Cartels riddle the city and are known to kidnap, rape, and extort migrants that travel through the area. “I have to risk my life just to get an appointment,” Tumulis says.

Now, Tumulis’s story is one not all too different from those of hundreds of thousands of individuals seeking to find opportunity in the United States. However, the U.S. immigration system is currently being overrun due to poor policies and a lack of enforcement on our southern border.

Unfortunately, the record rise in illegal immigration and illegal attempts to cross the U.S. southern border in the past two years has put a major stain on the American public’s perception of immigration. The U.S. is the “land of opportunity” and should remain that way for as long as the union stands. Regardless, the infestation of America’s southern border and the belief from many migrants that their only route into the country is by doing so illegally must change.

For families like Tumulis’s, the U.S. immigration system must be amended to better serve those individuals and families who deserve the chance at residency within our borders. Who must be shunted under our system is dangerous criminals, cartel members, and drug offenders who are currently flooding our border at record rates.

There indeed exists a fine line between allowing those who deserve a chance at residency in the U.S. and are merely just seeking opportunity versus disbarring those who have delegitimized the process through illegal actions.

It is the job of the U.S. Congress and the President to design a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration package that is strict in law enforcement, bolsters our immigration agencies, but also expands access for those migrants who deserve a chance but have been stuck waiting in the process for years, like Tumulis.

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling in regard to a deaf student’s lawsuit against his public school district for discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the bench.

Background:

Petitioner – Miguel Perez, 23-year old deaf student in Michigan

Respondent – Sturgis Public Schools

As identified above, Miguel Perez was a 23-year old deaf student in the state of Michigan when filing this lawsuit. Perez sued the Sturgis Public Schools on the basis of violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for a compilation of reasons. First, Perez’s family learned only shortly before he was supposed to graduate that the school would not be granting him his diploma. Perez claims that although the school provided him a classroom aide, the aide was not trained to work with deaf students and did not know language. He attended Sturgis Public Schools for 11 years and during that time either never received an aide, or when he did received one that yet again either was inadequate in serving his needs or who would often be absent.

Following the notification that he would not be receiving his diploma on time, Perez filed a complaint to the Michigan Department of Education claiming that the school denied him an adequate education under his disability, therefore violating the federal laws I referenced above (along with some state laws). Prior to a hearing that would be held to entertain his IDEA violation claim, the school district settled with Perez. The contents of the settlement included for the school paying for Perez to attend the Michigan School for the Deaf, post-secondary compensatory education, and sign language instruction for both Perez and his family.

Following the settlement, Perez filed suit against both the school district and Michigan Department of Education for failing to provide him the necessary resources to participate and succeed in his coursework.

Two levels of lower courts rejected Perez’s ADA violation claim due to a failure to exhaust administrative proceedings under the IDEA. The district court ruled that since Perez settled with the school district before undergoing any formal administrative proceedings under the IDEA, he exhausted his right to file an ADA claim. This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Curcuit.

Ruling:

The essential question in this case is whether or not failing to exhaust administrative proceedings under the IDEA prohibits an individual from filing suit even when the proceedings may be meaningless.

Justice Gorsuch and the remaining members of the bench were not shy to overturn the rulings of the courts below them. Gorsuch explains that Perez’s suit seeks compensation for both the “emotional distress” and “lost income” that Perez suffered as a result of the school district’s inability to provide him adequate resources. He reasons that this claim is outside of the scope of the IDEA. Gorsuch agreed with Perez that the administrative proceedings only need to be exhausted under a claim that seeks remedies that the IDEA can provide. Since Gorsuch and other members of the bench felt that in Perez’s case, the IDEA could not provide him these compensations, the facts of his case warrant an ability for him to file suit without exhausting administrative proceedings.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-887

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/court-rules-for-deaf-student-in-education-law-case/

Civic Issues Blog #3 (U.S. Immigration Crisis)

While I alluded last time that I would use some comparative analysis to compare different immigration systems around the world to that in the U.S., I want to step back and take a broader look at an immigration system that I most often see promoted by some policymakers and the American public.

First, I would like to do some further analysis on what this system is called: a meritocracy. A meritocracy is defined by Merriam-Webster as being “a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.” In terms of immigration, a meritocracy is the system by which a government selectively refines their list of possible immigrants based on certain desirable skills or abilities. Under the Trump administration, calls to establish a more firm meritocratic U.S. immigration system were a key element of that administration’s immigration plans. In 2007, President George W. Bush unveiled an eventually rejected compromise for increasing border security and being more restrictive of immigrants through meritocratic measures at the expense of granting legal status to many of the 11 million immigrants who currently resided in the U.S. at this time (The New York Times). Trump’s proposal would have revived a key component of Bush’s compromise in making the standards for U.S. immigration more strict through a merit-based system.

“It’s a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially, yet in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon,” said Trump. “Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, we will have so many more benefits.” Indeed, this certainly could be true. At face-value, it makes sense to think that weeding out the skilled workers versus unskilled workers could certainly have a noticeable impact on the U.S. economy. As things stand today, most Americans view immigration most favorably for the possible impacts it can have on the economy. But, even many in the Republican Party addressed a key concern they had with Trump’s full merit-based proposal: many vital jobs including agricultural work and other more hands-on, high labor activities might not be of interest to these more highly-educated or wealthy immigrants. Policy is often a balance trying to find the correct amount of trade-offs that can most facilitate success. The way to mend this divide is to establish quota limits for immigrants who are distinctly classified by things like education level, income, and associated skills. This is something done in Canada, which is one of the most democratic nations in the world. Canada assigns points to prospective immigrants given their educational and employment background, language proficiency and financial means, etc. with the highest point-earners getting priority admission.

Frankly, many of the immigrants searching for opportunity in the United States never received the opportunities to foster their own success in their native lands. I think it is unfair if these individuals are punished if they were unable to receive an adequate education or find a serviceable job in a country that, frankly, did not provide them with the framework to be successful. Thus, I think that if these different groups of immigrants were able to be better classified and distinguished from one another, there would be a mutual gain for both parties in the immigration system. The United States is the “land of opportunity” and any person wishing to make a positive impact on themselves and their country should have the opportunity to be granted residency here. But, given the massive influx of illegal border crossings and the staggeringly high percentage of immigrants who are in the country illegally, some of this “good” in the immigration system is forgotten.

I heard someone the other day say immigration in the United States is far from the Ellis Island days. I find that to be evidently true, partially because of how complacent we have become in enforcing our own policies. If you were an immigrant seeking residency in the United States, why would you possibly go through the legal immigration process, which takes extensive time, when you can just enter undetected and go about your life? Our system does not incentivize individuals to do it “the right way”, as those who do it that way are often under closer watch and surveillance than the ones who slip in totally undetected. Many of the sanctuary state and city proposals established nationwide counteract this goal of incentivizing legal immigration. If an area is granting you amnesty for unlawfully being inside the United States, you would much rather go that route than being backlogged in the courts for years on end.

Indeed, the backlogging of immigration courts is another key aspect of how the system is failing prospective migrants and the American people. When looking at a graph illustrating the historical trends of backlogging within American immigration courts, you can see that the amount of cases being processed have quadrupled over roughly the last 15 years. Right before the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 83,000 cases were currently cluttering immigration courts (Syracuse University). Compare that to 2005 when only 26,000 cases filled the courts’ dockets. This is an apparent issue within our system and something that is once again incentivizing immigrants to come in the wrong way.

To summarize, I think the establishment of a hybrid model between skilled and unskilled immigrants is imperative for the United States immigration system. While we could certainly establish a point system of the likes of the Canadian system and include more meritocratic principles within the system, it is also imperative that we don’t shut the door on those migrants who do not possess the intrinsically unique skills of their peers. I do believe that skilled immigrants should be of the most priority to the United States, but a quota system should be established to address the unskilled migrants who are simply seeking an opportunity. Individuals who demonstrate potential and a willingness to positively influence the United States through their residency should undeniably be given residency within our country. I’m honestly not sure the most effective way that the U.S. can address the backlogging issue within our immigration courts given the stringent nature of the legal process, but I believe attacking some of the root causes of the issue can further alleviate the pressures faced by federal immigration officials, agencies, and courts.

None of the points I have made today are news to lawmakers, but it is simply now just a waiting time until Congress decides to take off the partisan hats and reach bipartisan compromise on a much needed overhaul of the U.S. immigration system.

 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/immigration-trump.html?_r=0

https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/

Biden v. Nebraska

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

The court has collectively released five opinions in the past eight days, a monumental development for what has been a sluggish term for the nation’s highest court in terms of volume of opinion release. While each of these opinions could be individually analyzed in this blog, I want to take the time to shed light to one of the more notable cases the court has heard in recent memory. This Tuesday, oral arguments were given in Biden v. Nebraska, a case which will challenge the constitutionality of President Biden’s plans to relieve student debt.

Background:

Petitioner — Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States

Respondent — Nebraska, et al.

President Biden has long campaigned on the promise of relieving student debt and single-handedly putting his foot in the ground on the issue that many in his voting bloc feel very strongly about. Once elected, the Biden administration determined that students with an annual income of less than $125,000 would be relieved of $10,000 of their respective debt. However, this policy wasn’t enacted through the approval of Congress. It was instated thanks to the presidential tool of “executive action” of which is the cornerstone issue in this case.

The state of Nebraska and five other states sued the Biden administration over whether their claim to have Article III standing to challenge the student-debt relief plan was legal substantial, and whether enacting the plan exceeds the Secretary of Education’s statutory authority. The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit determined that the executive action “contravenes the separation of powers and violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds the Secretary’s authority and is arbitrary and capricious.” Thus, the justices of the nation’s highest court approached this case knowing that upholding the ruling of the 8th Circuit court would be the final dagger in Biden’s plan for a vast and robust student loan debt relief federal program.

A key issue during the arguments came to be the MOHELA program (Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority). MOHELA is among one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the country. According to Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell, Biden’s plan would threaten to cut MOHELA’s funding by as high as 40%. Given that MOHELA’s revenues directly determine the amount of student aid the program can issue, the program would be largely decimated by an enacting of the Biden administration’s student loan debt cancellation plan.

In her argument before the court, petitioner’s counsel U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar was sympathetic to MOHELA being exasperated by the Biden administration’s plan, but states that this alone is not enough to warrant a lawsuit by the states. Much of what Biden’s decision-making throughout the process reflected that of the Trump administration’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and legislation following 9/11 known as the HEROES Act. DeVos suspended repayments of student loan debt in March 2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing precedent for the Department of Education to make sweeping changes regarding student loan forgiveness without Congressional approval. Regarding the HEROES Act, the Biden administration cites language that “gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a “national emergency” by making changes to the student-loan programs so that borrowers are left not worse off because of the emergency.”

As what could be reasonably assumed, the conservative justices of the Court did not speak highly of the plan when directing questions toward the petitioner’s counsel. The conservative bloc fell strongly in favor of the states’ right to sue and noticeably skeptical that the Biden administration could apply the HEROES Act as precedent. Obviously, the court’s liberal bloc fell along largely opposite beliefs, seeming to side with the argument that MOHELA is a “separate entity” which is independent from the state thus challenging the right for Missouri to sue based on it.

It can be reasonably assumed that once this monumental decision comes out, it will largely be along the court’s ideological lines. As indicated by the starkly different line of questioning from both sides, the conservative-dominant court is the only thing standing in the way of Biden’s plan. Given the current makeup of the court, it is only reasonable to assume that the days of Biden’s student loan debt plan being enacted via executive action are numbered. It will be extremely intriguing to read the opinion of the Court once released and see which justices side in the majority as well as the legal justification to why the plan’s method of establishment either violates or is consistent with historical precedent.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-506

Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan gets cold reception from conservative justices

Biden v. Nebraska

 

Image Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx

Civic Issues Blog #2 (U.S. Immigration Crisis)

To continue my analysis from a few weeks ago, I want to further analyze a proposal that I mentioned vaguely last time. The adoption of a state-sponsored visa system is something that I have done some extensive prior research on in the past and am a huge proponent of. Currently, the allocation of immigrant visas (individuals looking to relocate to the U.S. on a permanent basis) is a largely complex process. There are a number of quotas that Congress has issued to limit the various types of immigrants that the country can accept per year (i.e. family-based or employment-based). The U.S. currently offers roughly 675,000 immigrant visas per year (American Immigration Council).

Personally, I think the federal system is a bit too centralized and doesn’t necessarily meet the needs of both immigrants and the areas in which they locate to. A state-sponsored visa system would change that, with the federal government allocating their set number of immigrant visas to the states. Each state has much different needs, economies, lifestyles, demographics, etc. For example, why should Idaho be under the same federal visa laws as a state like Texas who receives an immensely higher number of border crossings per year.

If the federal government would design a system that could proportionally distribute their visa quotas to the states who most need them, I foresee a more mutually beneficial visa system for both immigrants and the states that will house them. While merit-based immigration already exists to some extent in the U.S., allowing states to have the jurisdiction to select which immigrants they feel could most positively influence their state economy/society is a necessity. For example, if a particular state was in high demand for carpentry, they could use some of their allotted visas to accept immigrants with skills in this field. This can apply to a vast number of fields and skills, and I believe nurturing this relationship between the immigrant and the state allows both parties to be on a fast track to success.

Centralized power often complicates things and makes systems more complex than they need to be. The division of power between the federal and state government in the U.S. is an essential component of our daily lives. While states handle things like education and infrastructure more directly than the federal government, I think to some extent we need to see a transition in immigration jurisdiction more to the state-level as well. I believe that our national immigrations and customs enforcement agencies must still remain strong and provide the necessary resources to states to succeed, but that more of the selection of visa applicants and granting of permanent residency is something that state governments should have a more direct say in.

Now that I touched on a component that could very well be a major stepping stone in alleviating this crisis, I want to now contend on where I think things may be heading. If you have been following national news recently, you should know that Congress has still not currently raised the debt ceiling. Much of this is due to the Republicans now taking control of the House and looking for concessions to be made by President Biden. Not raising the debt ceiling will eventually push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt, a situation that would have catastrophic effects on the U.S. and global economies. You may be asking why I am bringing up this tense debate ongoing in Washington at this very moment? Well, there is a major reason and a reason where I think the immigration crisis comes into play.

Republicans are basically pulling the “we won’t raise the debt ceiling until you give us what we want” card. A politically savvy move, I can foresee an immigration package resulting from this tit-for-tat between Biden and McCarthy. One of the top agenda items on the Republican platform year-in and year-out is putting an end to the illegal immigration crisis and, in recent years, stopping the record high illegal crossings along on our southern border. While border enforcement has recently been viewed as more of a Republican issue, it is undeniable that the Democrat party has been in hot water surrounding their non-committal nature on cleaning up the crisis. Many more Americans have had their eyes opened to what is actually happening on our southern border in recent years and have become increasingly frustrated by the relative inaction by both parties. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, it is becoming increasingly more apparent that immigration will be on of the top several issues on the minds of a lot of moderate/independent voters as they have seen the record amount of crossings that have occurred under the current administration.

With this newfound pressure, I think the Democrat party can’t ignore the border crisis much larger. President Biden can compile a genius political move if he can compromise with the Republicans on a comprehensive border package. Republicans know they are not going to get everything they want in the package, but I believe at this point they know that something is better than nothing given the current climate surrounding the crisis. If I were a betting man, I would not be surprised if the president’s advisors were currently heavily advocating behind-the-scenes to get some sort of border package done by the end of the year. This would be a monumental moment in the Biden presidency and something his reelection campaign (if he chooses to run again) would easily hammer repetitively on the trail.

A recent Gallup poll shows that a record amount of Americans want less immigration now than ever before, with this tremendous spike all taking occurrence following President Biden’s inauguration in 2021 (Axios). It is apparent the American public will not continue to sit-by and watch the horrors immigrants face when just trying to reach the United States safely. Many are tired of seeing the individuals who truly need the migration get shunned away while cartels are able to utilize their resources to effectively smuggle drugs across the border. Families should not have to be ripped apart and American citizens should not be in danger because of ineptitude regarding the border crisis. We have a legal immigration system for a reason, but it is certainly time we reform it so it meets the needs of immigrants, states, and the American public who help acclimate these individuals to their new home.

In my next post, I will be analyzing some of the effective immigration systems/policies enacted around the world and examining what exact additional policy alternatives the U.S. can deduce from countries who have been successful in alleviating any potential immigration crises of their own.

Citations:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/15/america-immigration-border-gallup

Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

With many of the high court’s October term cases having not been decided at this moment, this week I will be taking a look at one of the most personally intriguing cases of this term. In a case that has gotten relatively substantial media coverage over the past several years, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is an extremely relevant and thought-provoking case that could forever alter the college admissions process.

Background:

In 2003, a 5-4 decision by the Rehnquist court established a landmark ruling surrounding the liberties college admissions offices could take in dictating their applicants in Grutter v. Bollinger. In the majority opinion of the court written by associate justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court ruled that race was a very minimal factor in the University of Michigan Law School’s acceptance process and that the college conducted very individualized examinations of each applicant. Thus, affirmative action was held to be constitutional if the university did not strongly factor race in their decision and conducted thorough reviews in this search. The petitioners in this case said that the discrimination. by the law school based on race necessitated a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the First Amendment, however, the court disagreed.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College is a direct challenge to the court’s ruling in Grutter.

Petitioner: Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)

Respondent: Harvard College

SFFA sued Harvard over what is claimed to be “discriminatory practices” favoring white students over Asian-American students. SFFA claims Harvard’s practice of factoring race in admissions decisions is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Harvard has admitted to considering race as one of its factors in admissions decisions, but refers back to the existing precedent established in Grutter that affirms the practice.

At the district and federal (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) court levels, both held that Harvard’s practices were consistent to the practices surrounding the case in Grutter.

Following marathon oral arguments given by each side on October 31st, 2022, the fate of this case lies in the hands of the bench.

Hunter’s Thoughts:

Speaking on a pending case, it is very curious to speculate what direction this conservatively-dominated court might lean. This ruling will have substantial implications on the future of affirmative action in the United States and the college admissions process as a whole. Amidst the oral arguments on October 31st, the court’s six conservative justices all seemed to undermine the precedent established by the court to protect affirmative action to a certain extent. Justice Clarence Thomas openly expressed to the respondents “I don’t have a clue (what diversity is)” in reference to the schools’ claiming that they consider diversity as an educational benefit. Indeed, the term “diversity” can certainly be ambiguous and vary from person to person. In this case, it is almost certain that the court’s conservative justices will challenge the ambiguity of that term and the general subjectiveness of the college admissions process as a whole.

While it is in the right of these universities to accept who they please, “what satisfies sufficient diversity” is certainly a difficult question to answer. The conservative justices were all quick to harp on this issue and press the universities to address their interpretation of what diversity is and when their institution deems adequate diversity to have been met.

I do not want to speculate on the decision by the court as it is still in the pre-ruling phase, but it is without a doubt that affirmative action seemingly hangs in the balance. The precedent established by the court in Grutter certainly hangs on by a thread and it will be interesting to determine if the high court views the facts in this case similarly or different. Like Justice Thomas, who notably dissented in Grutter, the decision boils down to whether some of the court’s newer conservative justices believe that affirmative action is a significant problem plaguing college admissions.

I will update in a later blog post when the Court comes to a decision on this case and what implications it has for the future of affirmative action in the United States. But, until that time, the debate surrounding the efficacy of affirmative action and its role in a 21st-century America will continue to encapsulate the American media and many adamant followers of the court’s eventual ruling and superseding of precedent.

 

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Affirmative action appears in jeopardy after marathon arguments

Image Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx

Civic Issues Blog #1 (U.S. Immigration Crisis)

Year after year, the news cycle turns itself upon its head and changes as many times as one can count. However, one constant that remains unchanged in the turbulent agenda-setting of the federal government is the national debate surrounding immigration. Since the dawn of our nation, immigration has been a topic that has consistently plagued lawmakers in the United States. Going back to the days of Ellis Island, immigration policy debates have often been long and arduous with little ground for compromise. In this series of blog posts, I will be analyzing some of the main policies and policy proposals that have contributed substantially to the immigration crisis we have at our southern border and how the U.S. can compose a comprehensive, bipartisan border plan that can address the concerns of the American public.

Many people think that viewing immigration as one of your top concerns on the federal level means you automatically have to be right-leaning. But, the statistics surrounding the crisis speak for themselves. So much so that President Joe Biden visited the busiest crossing point in El Paso just a few weeks ago. In the last fiscal year, Border Patrol apprehending a whopping 2.3 million illegal immigrants attempting to cross the southern border, the highest number ever (Kim). In the past two fiscal years, total apprehensions along the border have exceeded 4 million, breaking just about every precedent and record there is and provoking Border Patrol to arduously plead for more aid. President Biden reiterated “They need a lot of resources. We’re going to get it for them.” The border crossing point in El Paso, known as the “Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry”, is set to receive $600 million from Biden’s infrastructure plan. While certainly a good step, just throwing money at the problem has consistently shown itself in the past that it cannot alleviate the issues surrounding the root causes of the immigration crisis. 

You may be asking, who are these people that are surging the border in record numbers and why are they coming here? A large bulk of these migrants are individuals fleeing their native countries due to poor economic conditions, the fear of socialism in countries like Venezuela or Nicaragua, and the prospect of finding economic success in the United States. Rather than going through the legal process of immigration which can take multiple years to conclude, these individuals are opting to test their chances to sneak into the country and if caught, test the asylum process. Asylum is the term used to describe an individual who is fleeing a country due to significant human rights violations or poor conditions but is not yet recognized as an official refugee. The asylum process is a long and difficult legal battle, with few actually presenting enough to warrant being granted asylum status.

With the amount of asylum-applicants reaching levels not ever seen before in the history of the United States, what can be done to alleviate the crisis that is undeniably statistically shown to be rampaging our southern border? One policy the Biden administration adopted in the past few weeks granted private citizens the right to sponsor refugees (Jordan). This policy was one of the most significant amendments to the U.S. refugee program in history and is intended to expand the network of sponsors refugees can find by now allowing a whole new demographic to sponsor individuals both logistically and financially. While this is a good policy for refugee displacement, it does not apply to the asylum seekers who do not obtain refugee status or possess a work visa to conduct work in the United States. Visas are issued to individuals who apply to work in the United States and may be sponsored by American businesses or individuals willing to do so. Individuals who come to study in the United States can also apply for visa status to curtail the risk of falling under illegal status.

Keeping these legal forms of immigration (refugee and visas) intact and strong is paramount to addressing the root causes of the crisis. If these legal systems in place to aid immigrants coming into the United States are weak and failing, the entire system as a whole is doing a disservice to these immigrants and the American public. In recent months, a policy known as Title 42 has become widely discussed in the media for its overarching impact on border crossings across the southern border. 

Title 42, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, was a policy instituted that permits border patrol agents to expel migrants trying to cross the border due to an ongoing public health emergency. This policy gave border patrol a brand new legal route of curtailing the ongoing siege of migrants and preventing a total overwhelming of migrants crossing over the border who are fleeing their countries’ failed responses to the pandemic. However, there is a catch. In November, a federal judge issued a ruling that Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (Jordan and Sullivan). Per the ruling, Title 42 would have to soon cease to exist and with it, potentially catastrophic circumstances for our southern border. 19 Republican-led states immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, of whom said to hear arguments surrounding the case this February and keep the policy intact for the meantime (Sullivan). Some of these Republican-led states are not doing this solely to establish a political point, as those in close proximity to the border have pleaded vigorously to the federal government that they do not contain the resources adequate to home this potentially historic influx in migrants. 

While the fate of Title 42 lies in the hands of the judicial system, the outlook for the immigration crisis remains bleak. While it is certainly positive that the administration is willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars in resources that will certainly help border patrol and border states be able to manage the crisis, more bipartisan policy changes are needed to address the fundamental reason that border crossings are at record highs. Looking at ways the asylum process can be more exclusive and not cluttered with hundreds of thousands of immigrants seeking for some way into the United States is mutually beneficial for both sides.

What the administration did with allowing private citizens to sponsor refugees is a good step that I believe can take much of the load off of federal immigration agencies. The visa process is also a highly complex process that I believe should be expanded heavily as well. Giving more businesses and private citizens the resources able to sponsor more immigrants for work or educational reasons is quintessential in improving that part of the immigration process. In regard to Title 42, it is absolutely pivotal that the policy remains in place until our federal immigration/border agencies and border states are adequately equipped to face the repercussions of eliminating this policy.

A policy that I will dive a little more in-depth on in one of my subsequent blog posts is the proposal for state-sponsored visas that would allow state governments to be allocated a set number of visas per year and can choose immigrants that they think will be beneficial to their state’s society and economy based on merit. It is a topic I have done some extensive research on in the past and am certainly willing to continue clawing away at. But, for now, hopefully this first post establishes that the immigration crisis is anything but a “manufactured crisis” and there is an urgent need for a bipartisan solution to the issue to prevent a ransacking of our federal immigration agencies and systems.

 

Sources:

Jordan, Miriam. “Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/us/refugee-resettlement-policy-biden.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-us-immigration&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc.

Kim, Juliana. “The U.S. Set a New Record for Apprehensions at the Southern Border.” NPR, NPR, 24 Oct. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1130841306/new-record-in-border-patrol-apprehensions.

Sullivan, Eileen, and Miriam Jordan. “Illegal Border Crossings, Driven by Pandemic and Natural Disasters, Soar to Record High.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/border-crossings-immigration-record-high.html.

Sullivan, Eileen. “Title 42 Has Allowed Many Migrants to Be Quickly Expelled, and Others to Stay.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/us/politics/immigration-public-health-rule-mexico.html.

Arellano v. McDonough

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

For the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic almost three years ago, the SCOTUS had a justice issue a decision directly from the bench in Arellano v. McDonough on Monday. In her first summarized opinion from the bench, associate justice Amy Coney Barrett announced the unanimous decision of the court in a case involving military benefits.

Case Background:

Petitioner, Adolfo Arellano (U.S. Navy Veteran)

Respondent, Denis McDonough (Secretary of the VA)

The petitioner, Adolfo Arellano, served in the United States Navy from November 1977 to October 1981. Mr. Arellano was seriously injured in an aircraft carrier collision in 1980 that forced to medically retire a year later. As a result of this incident, Mr. Arellano suffered from bipolar disorder and PTSD and had been largely unable to care for himself alone. 30 years after his discharge, on June 3rd, 2011, Arellano applied for disability benefits on the basis of a psychiatric disorder that he claimed left him “100% disabled.” To successfully acquire retroactive disability benefits from the military, one must apply for these benefits within one year following their discharge from service. Thus, Mr. Arellano only started receiving monthly disability benefits starting from when he filed in 2011; he seeks to acquire hundreds of thousands of dollar in back pay from the 30 years that passed from his discharge to his filing date. Mr. Arellano claims that his disability prevented him from applying for benefits sooner and thus explains why he had missed the deadline. He argues that him and many others alike him should receive these retroactive payouts due to their respective disabilities inhibiting them from filing sooner.

The court was asked to rule in this case whether military veterans can receive retroactive benefits even if they missed the filing deadline for disability benefits from the U.S. military. A case that could potentially reward tens of thousands of dollars to veterans in back pay who similarly missed filing deadlines, the court is asked to make a significant decision on the rights of disabled military veterans.

Ruling:

Unanimous ruling in favor of respondent, McDonough

Justice Barrett vehemently states in the unanimous ruling by the court “the statute sets out detailed instructions that explain when various types of benefits qualify for an effective date earlier than the default.” She wrote that federal rules are clear on the one-year window that veterans must file paperwork within to receive back date payouts to their military separation date. Additionally Barrett includes a strong line in her opinion that stuck out to me: “hard and fast limits on retroactive benefits can create harsh results.”

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeals, in 2021, concluded that Mr. Arellano’s claim did not warrant sufficient legal precedent. This court cited the ruling in Andrews v. Principi, which held that “principles of equitable tolling are not applicable to the time period (one-year window).” Equitable tolling is a legal principle which ideally grants an extension in deadlines for individuals who can adequately prove some sort of inhibition or disability that prevented them from meeting a deadline.

Citing the upheld ruling of the Court of Appeals ruling, Justice Barrett and the rest of the bench were clear on their interpretation of federal law and that often the law is the hard truth. In a case that has riddled the federal judiciary for years and been under a microscopic lens from numerous military watchdogs, retroactive disability benefits will not need be repaid and the court establishes the inability to extend that one-year deadline clearly in their ruling in Arellano v. McDonough.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-432

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/us/supreme-court-veteran-opinions.html

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2023/01/23/supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-ease-retroactive-benefits-rules-for-vets/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-432_f2bh.pdf

Image Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx