We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
De Facto Immigration Courts.
- Authors
Lee, Stephen
- Abstract
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court recognized a noncitizen defendant's right to be informed by her attorney of any downstream immigration consequences that might flow from a proposed plea deal. In establishing this important right, the Court recognized a stark reality. that in many instances, a noncitizen's only meaningful opportunity to avoid removal arises in ups fream criminal proceedings. This Article traces out the implications of a world where criminal courts (especially at the state level) operate as de facto immigration courts. This Article aims to do three things. First, it shows that local prosecutors operate as gatekeepers in the world of de facto immigration courts, a point the Court recognizes and embraces in Padilla and other cases. Second, it explains that prosecutors can exercise their gatekeeping power to deviate from or completely unsettle federal immigration enforcement priorities, a quality that distinguishes them from other local actors participating in immigration enforcement. Third and finally, thu Article explores how Congress and the Court might accommodate this nascent reality.
- Subjects
UNITED States; PADILLA v. Kentucky; CONSTITUTIONAL law; IMMIGRATION law; CRIMINAL justice system; PLEA bargaining; IMMIGRATION courts
- Publication
California Law Review, 2013, Vol 101, Issue 3, p553
- ISSN
0008-1221
- Publication type
Article