Thursday, November 30, 2017
At the Journal of Things We Like (JOTWELL), Jill Family (Widener) reviews Ming Hsu Chen's (Colorado) recent law review article, "The Administrator-in-Chief: The President and Executive Action in Immigration Law."
Here's the introductory paragraph to Family's review: "Professor Ming Chen’s Administrator-In-Chief: The President and Executive Action in Immigration Law is an ambitious effort to peer inside the relationship between a president and administrative agencies. It is the executive branch equivalent to the legislative sausage. Professor Chen concludes that a president is on strongest footing when he “promot[es] practices of good government in agencies rather than trying to substitute his policymaking judgments for those of the agency.” (P. 359.) The article emphasizes that the president should focus on his control over three things: (1) coherent federal policy; (2) centralized agency discretion, ensuring consistency, and (3) coordinating actions across all agencies. The article concludes that procedural choices matter; the president should work hard to set a procedural example and to use his influence to encourage procedural choices that will strengthen the legitimacy of policies. Professor Chen argues that the normative justifiability of presidential policymaking rests on whether the president is promoting coherency, consistency and coordination."
Also, in case you missed it, earlier this fall Angela Banks (William and Mary) reviewed Kerry Abrams' (Virginia) piece, "Family Reunification and the Security State" on JOTWELL.
Banks writes: "Many Americans believe that one of the functions of United States immigration law is to facilitate family reunification...Yet another function of U.S. immigration law is border control to protect national security. ..The relationship between these two immigration law functions—family reunification and national security—has varied throughout American history. Kerry Abrams’ forthcoming article, Family Reunification and the Security State, provides a framework for understanding the “shifting and complex relationship” between these two immigration law functions. (P. 1.) Professor Abrams identifies three periods of U.S. history in which the relationship between these two immigration law functions has varied. During the age of the unitary family there was little tension between the two immigration law functions, and family unity was paramount. In the subsequent age of security, the State’s concern about national security threats increased and family reunification was subordinated to border control. We are currently in the age of balancing in which family rights are viewed as individual constitutional rights that must be balanced with the State’s interest in border control. The implications of these shifts are highly visible today as citizens challenge President Trump’s executive order limiting migration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen based on their interest in family reunification."