Abstract
ARTICLE: Weber and Judicial Legitimacy: A Critical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Immigration Cases Nielsen v. Preap (2019) and Barton v. Barr (2020)
Highlights
This paper analyzes the legitimacy of two U.S Supreme Court decisions, Nielsen v
In the following 2019 term, the high court analyzed another challenge to the deportation of a permanent legal resident in Barton v
In 2019, 86% of persons arrested by ICE had criminal convictions or pending charges, and 85% of persons removed from the United States to their home nations had served time while in ICE custody (U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2019)
Summary
In assessing challenges to the legitimacy of the judiciary, it is useful to consult Weber’s analysis on a formal legal system and the value of an independent judiciary (Weber, 1966; 1983). The majority’s refusal to address the constitutional issues raised by the facts in these cases supports a criticism that the Court was behaving in a partisan fashion, especially when considered along with its other recent immigration decision in Trump v. That the Barton (2020) holding overlooks Barton’s long-term continuous residency in the United States and permanent legal status, retroactively to declare him “inadmissible” challenges the very notion of accountability and predictability These rulings negate our common understanding of the substantive content of due process in the context of immigration law. This is especially true considering that modern theories of legitimacy are viewed and driven by a sense of procedural justice (Vuolo, 2014). Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam had sought to vacate an immigration court’s removal order after an expedited removal proceeding
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
