Invisible Adjudication in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Dubious Deference: Reassessing Appellate Standards of Review in Immigration Appeals

The long-standing doctrine of deferential review by appellate courts of findings of fact by administrative agencies is seriously flawed for two main reasons. First, the most prominent justification for deference relies on the empirical assumption that first-instance adjudicators are best able to determine the truth because they can directly view witness demeanor. Decades of social science resea...

A Federal Appellate System for the Twenty-First Century

In December 1998, the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals issued a report and recommendations for Congress and the President. The commission resulted from ongoing controversy over splitting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The commissioners clearly suggested that the circuit remain intact but proposed three regionally based adjudicative divisio...

Nonacquiescence in Immigration Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Shedding Light on Chevron: An Empirical Study of the Chevron Doctrine in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Justice on the Fly: The Danger of Errant Deportations

The government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court ...