Recent Articles in Volume 79, Issue 1 (2026)
By Kevin R. Johnson – President Trump’s mass deportation campaign selected as one of its early targets Los Angeles, California, and its large Latina/o community. Comprising roughly half of the city’s population, Latina/os are being stopped, questioned, and rounded up by roving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) patrols. A legal challenge claimed that the patrols are engaging in unlawful racial profiling on a mass scale. The litigation responds to the widespread belief among Latina/os that the Trump Administration is unduly, if not exclusively, relying on race in targeting people for questioning about their immigration status. []
By Gabriel J. Chin – During Reconstruction, as Congress debated the place of African-Americans in U.S. society, it evaluated how the principles it articulated would apply to Chinese-Americans. Rather than adopting a race-neutral jurisprudence, it began identifying the ways in which the law could be deployed to deny Asians economic and political opportunities, and the right to immigrate. Ultimately, a joint network of federal and state laws denied Asians the right to naturalize, to own land, and to immigrate. In a rare win, a divided Supreme Court held that the children of Chinese people born in the United States were citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. During the Civil Rights Revolution following World War II, the position of Asians in the United States essentially reversed. Congress made immigration and naturalization race-neutral, and the Asian population increased from about half of one percent in 1960 to around 6% in 2025. []
By Jennifer Lee Koh – Amidst the dizzying array of developments taking place under the banner of mass deportation, the second Trump Administration is engaged in a sustained effort to fundamentally transform the country’s immigration courts by incapacitating them. Although the immigration courts have long been the subject of extensive criticism, they also seek to function as neutral forums in which the Department of Justice adjudicates the removability of noncitizens and certain types of immigration relief, governed by due process principles. Rendering those courts unable to perform their functions could potentially give rise to a more fundamental deterioration of even the semblance of due process in immigration adjudication. []
By Cori Alonso-Yoder and Gabriel Sanchez – The second Trump Administration has disregarded a history of bipartisan support in avoiding immigration enforcement actions in schools. Certain states have acted to further target children at school—advancing measures to exclude many from public education based on immigration status. While the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe affirmed the state and national interests in educating students regardless of status, the Heritage Foundation has called on states to pass legislation to overturn that decades-old precedent. While no state has yet adopted these measures, many states have tried, marking a new attack on the precedent in Plyler. []
By Michael Kagan – The Trump Administration has aggressively pursued a policy of deporting people who have been found to be in danger of persecution or torture in their countries of origin to third countries. It has primarily impacted people who have two types of what may be called second-class asylum, namely withholding or deferral or removal. This Article examines the structural problems posed by second-class asylum as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA’s collection of tiered protected status for people in danger in their countries of origin was always illogical, though its incoherency was more manageable before 2025, when the government began to actively pursue third-country removals. The Article then proposes various solutions, including the creation of a new permanent protected status that would preserve the idea of tiered protection while avoiding the problems with the current system. []
By Elizabeth Keyes – Immigration law in the second Trump Administration has created profound disorientation and dissonance, where some legal matters proceed in largely familiar ways, and others seem to occur in an entirely new dimension. This Article avails itself of Ernst Fraenkel’s Dual State theory to examine this dissonance. It argues that a duality exists in U.S. immigration law today between the federal courts and the administrative immigration system. In Fraenkel’s terms, constitutional challenges to immigration policies and individual habeas cases demonstrate important features of the Normative State, one that is consistent with the Rule of Law. By contrast, the administrative system—comprising the Department of Justice’s immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement apparatus—exhibits all of the hallmarks of Fraenkel’s all-powerful Prerogative State, where executive power is unbounded. []
By R. Linus Chan – In the modern deportation era, immigration courts saw their ability to grant relief from deportation undergo significant restrictions, constraining individualized discretion in favor of "categorical" denials. Congress dramatically curtailed the discretionary tools available to immigration judges, with the latest being the pair of immigration reforms from 1996, shifting the locus of individualized decision-making away from the courts and toward enforcement officers and prosecutors. Immigration courts lost discretion in being able to decide who could formally be granted status and stay in the United States when facing deportation through various restrictive eligibility requirements written into the law. []