Saturday, February 21, 2015
Kerry v. Din implicates some issues that are at the core of immigration law, including the plenary power doctrine and judicial review of the substantive immigration decisions of Congress and the Executive Branch. While the Obama administration refused to defend in the Supreme Court two lower court decisions finding that the immigration statute barred judicial review, see Mata v. Holder (pending); Kucana v. Holder (2010), and does not consistently make plenary power arguments, the Office of the Solicitor General's briefs most aggressively defended the doctrine of consular nonreviewability -- the basic idea being that the visa decisions of Department of State consular officers are not subject to any judicial review -- and relied repeatedly on Cold War plenary power relics Knauff and Mezei.
Here is some of the commentary and news that ImmigrationProf has posted over the last few months about this much-awaited case:
Stay tuned for my recap on the oral argument.