President Obama's executive action in late 2014 deferring deportation for the undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (DAPA) has been the source of much debate. Critics argue that the president does not have carte blanche to decide which laws to enforce, and if he did, the next president might decide to forego enforcement of, for example, the Clean Water Act. Supporters argue that, in addition to its positive policy outcomes, the DAPA program is a legitimate exercise of executive power, especially since enforcement prioritization has to happen all the time, given limited resources. What is the scope of presidential power with regard to enforcing statutory law? Is immigration law different than other areas? What should be the outcome of the challenge to the DAPA program pending in federal court in Texas?
Speakers:
- Hon. Vanessa Ruiz, Senior Judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- Lucas Guttentag, Senior Counselor, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
- David Rivkin, Partner, BakerHostetler
- Peter Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University
- Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Director of the Center for Immigration Rights, Penn State Dickinson School of Law
ACS interviews Boston Lawyer Chapter Co-President Alistair Reader at the 2015 National Convention.
ACS interviews Kylie Oversen, UND Law School student and North Dakota state representative, at the 2015 ACS National Convention.
In its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to an abortion while introducing a new "undue burden" standard that has since been used to analyze infringements on that right. However, current events demonstrate that the undue burden standard is not a one-size-fits-all protection against obstacles to abortion. Recent restrictions - such as laws imposing new requirements on medication abortion, laws that require doctors to perform medically unnecessary ultrasounds or read ideological "informed consent" scripts to patients, and TRAP laws that target abortion providers for unwarranted and burdensome regulation - cumulatively, and sometimes individually, threaten to shut down many or most clinics in large swaths of the country. These challenges present new legal questions, including how the First Amendment should protect the speech between a doctor and patient and whether states can arbitrarily treat abortion differently than other comparable medical procedures. In light of the current composition of the court, how can advocates best preserve the fundamental protections afforded in Roe and Casey?
Speakers:
- Jill Filipovic, Senior Political Writer, Cosmopolitan.com
- Walter Dellinger, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers
- Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
- Julie Rikelman, Litigation Director, Center for Reproductive Rights
- Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School
ACS interviews Jessica Smith, the student member of the ACS Board and the president of the ACS Student Chapter at the Howard University School of Law.
ACS interviews Janson Wu, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), at the 2015 National Convention.
