Feminist Judgments: Immigration Law Opinions Rewritten

This book shows how critical feminist reasoning can reshape the current immigration legal regime in the United States.

Kathleen Kim (Edited by), Kevin Lapp (Edited by), Jennifer Lee (Edited by)

9781009198943, Cambridge University Press

Paperback / softback, published 2 November 2023

450 pages
22.8 x 15.2 x 2 cm, 0.55 kg

'Informed by the insights of feminist legal theory and critical race theory, these authors reimagine landmark Supreme Court immigration cases. The rewritten opinions illustrate how a more generous legal imagination could have avoided past injustices, and show us how law can better serve the ends of justice going forward.' Jennifer Chacon, University of California, Berkeley School of Law

This volume, part of the Feminist Judgment Series, shows how feminist legal theory along with critical race theory and intersectional modes of critique might transform immigration law. Here, a diverse collection of scholars and lawyers bring critical feminist, race, and intersectional insights to Supreme Court opinions. Feminist reasoning values the perspectives of outsiders, exposes the deep-rooted bias in the legal opinions of courts, and illuminates the effects of ostensibly neutral policies that create and maintain oppression and hierarchy. One by one, the chapters reimagine the norms that drive immigration policies and practices. In place of discrimination and subordination, the authors demand welcome and equality. Where current law omits the voice and stories of noncitizens, the authors center their lives and experiences. Collectively, they reveal how a feminist vision of immigration law could center a commitment to equality and justice and foster a country where diverse newcomers readily flourish with dignity.

1. Introduction Kathleen Kim, Kevin Lapp and Jennifer J. Lee
2. Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 US 275 (1875) Julie Dahlstrom and Stewart Chang
3. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 US 651 (1892) Eunice C. Lee and Stella Burch Elias
4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) Rachel Rosenbloom and Jonathan Weinberg
5. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 US 204 (1923) Jaya Ramji-Nogales and Joy Kanwar
6. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 US 21 (1982) Sabrina Balgamwalla and Erin Corcoran
7. Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982) Michael Olivas and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
8. Jean v. Nelson, 472 US 846 (1985) Raymond Audain and Patricia Winograd
9. Reno v. Flores, 507 US 292 (1993) Lindsay Harris and Julia Hernández
10. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 (2001) Nicole Hallett, Stacy Caplow and Maryellen Fullerton
11. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 US 137 (2002) Ruben Garcia and Kati Griffith
12. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010) Jack Chin and Marissa Montes
13. Arizona v. United States, 567 US 387 (2012) Kristina Campbell and Annie Lai
14. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) Ahilan Arulanantham, Sarah Sherman-Stokes and Sarah Schendel
15. Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) Kevin Johnson and Jennifer Lee Koh.

Subject Areas: International law [LB]