New Paper: New: Buying Time? False Assumptions About Abusive Appeals

The federal government has expressed fear that immigrants abuse the appellate process to delay their deportations by filing meritless petitions for review with the federal courts. Some courts have responded to these concerns by imposing stricter standards for issuing stays of removal, so that the government can more easily deport petitioners even while their appeals remain pending. The risk with this approach is that immigrants who ultimately prevail may be erroneously deported. What is often overlooked is that the potential for abuse is really a function of time, with longer appeals posing a greater threat to immigration enforcement. This study presents new empirical evidence showing that most circuit courts actually decide immigration appeals faster than previously assumed. Moreover, in many circuits the appeals most likely to be frivolous are resolved especially quickly. These results undermine the concerns that lead the government to oppose stays of removal and illustrate the …

via SSRN Author: Rebecca Gill

New Paper: New: 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 had little data to inform its decision. The Court will likely need to revisit this issue, as doubts cloud the meaning of Nken’s main holdings, in part because the government misled the Court. This Article responds to Justice Kennedy’s request for data and sheds light on the doctrinal controversies surrounding stays by presenting groundbreaking empirical analysis of 1646 cases in all the circuits that hear immigration appeals. It offers a singular window into an arena of adjudication where decisions are rarely articulated in writing. Among our most important findings, the circuit courts denied …

via SSRN Author: Rebecca Gill

New Paper: New: Implicit Gender Bias in State-Sponsored Judicial Performance Evaluations: A Preliminary Analysis of

The Colorado system of judicial performance evaluations is the Cadillac of JPEs; they spend more money on their system than other states, and their system has been designed by experts. Even still, disparities in the scores of female and male judges persist. These disparities cannot be explained away using objective measures of judicial performance. The gap appears in the attorney survey stage. The commission’s recommendations are based largely on the recommendations from these problematic attorn

via SSRN Author: Rebecca Gill