The ICE Storm in U.S. Homes: An Urgent Call for Policy Change

Katherine Evans

Since its creation in 2003, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used increasingly aggressive tactics to enforce U.S. immigration law. One of ICE’s most prominent enforcement initiatives is its practice of raiding the homes of immigrants. Accounts of home raids from victims all over the country reveal a pattern of practice that differs widely from ICE’s official statements regarding raids. This paper establishes that although immigration officials are governed by the Fourth Amendment when conducting home raids, ICE’s agents nonetheless regularly violate the Constitution when carrying out home raids. Additionally, this paper argues that the number and nature of these constitutional violations, combined with the social costs of the raids, present a compelling case for policy change. The paper concludes with a series of policy proposals that would rectify the profound invasions of privacy and degrading treatment many immigrants in this country are currently experiencing.

Immigrant Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Regime Part I: A New Vision for Workplace Regulation

Jayesh M. Rathod

View Full Text (PDF)

The Third Generation of Indigent Defense Litigation

Cara H. Drinan

Abstract

For years, scholars have documented the national crisis in indigent defense and its many tragic implications, and yet the crisis persists. Traditionally, the appellate and political processes were the exclusive avenues for indigent defense reform, and each suffered from critical infirmities. By the 1970s, individuals and groups began to seek prospective judicial reform of indigent defense systems. Widely used in other arenas, systemic suits based on the Sixth Amendment have been few in number and, at least in their early form, relatively unsuccessful. Other scholars have provided a descriptive account of structural litigation to improve indigent defense, and this article takes those accounts one step further by distilling from the recent body of suits a model for indigent defense litigation. In particular, this article divides suits of this kind into “first generation” and “second generation” suits-a distinction that is largely chronological, but phenomenological to an extent, as well. Firstgeneration suits were reactive and sought limited relief from the courts. In contrast, second-generation suits are marked by their empirical grounding, extensive alliances of support, and requests for sweeping reform. These second-generation suits have been far more successful than their predecessor suits, and this article contends that these suits are emblematic of a model that future suits can replicate. Finally, this article discusses specific issues for litigants of third-generation suits to consider, in particular the pursuit of a federal forum. At the same time, the article recognizes that this type of litigation is neither a panacea nor uniformly available, and the article concludes by offering advice for the individual defense attorney who is working in the midst of a public defense crisis.

View Full Text (PDF)