Jennifer Koh’s law review article, Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, published by the Wisconsin law Review in 2016, has been cited by Judge Marsha Berzon of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a concurring opinion arguing for reconsideration of whether the “crime involving moral turpitude” definition in immigration law is unconstitutionally vague. The decision in Aguirre-Barbosa v. Barr can be found here.
Professor Eunice Park’s article, “Objects, Places and Cyber-Spaces Post-Carpenter: Extending The Third-Party Doctrine Beyond CSLI: A Consideration of IoT and DNA,” was published by the Yale Journal of Law and Technology. The Article proposes an extended test for the third-party doctrine in the wake of Carpenter v. United States that balances decisional analysis with technological reality, offering a principled framework to encompass the privacy implications of technologies beyond CSLI, and examining the popular consumer technology of smart devices and private genomic testing services as examples.
Professor Jennifer’s Koh’s essay was published by the Stanford Law Review in its online immigration symposium. “Crimmigation Beyond the Headlines: The Board of Immigration Appeals’ Quiet Expansion of the Meaning of Moral Turpitude” critically examines the ways that the Board of Immigration Appeals has quietly but significantly expanded the definition of “crimes involving moral turpitude,” thereby enhancing the federal government’s power to detain, deport, and disqualify thousands of noncitizens from immigration relief.
On February 1, Professors Andrew Knapp and Jennifer Koh spoke at a symposium organized by the Southwestern Law Review on “Immigration in the Trump Era.” Both participated in a panel entitled, “Dimaya and the Crimmigration of Migration.” Professor Knapp shared about his representation of James Dimaya, whose case he took from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and for whom he and the rest of the legal team prevailed in Sessions v. Dimaya (invalidating a portion of the “crime of violence” definition in immigration law under the void for vagueness doctrine). Professor Koh’s comments focused on the void for vagueness doctrine and immigration enforcement, which arose from her law review article, “Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine,” which appeared in a 2017 issue of the Wisconsin Law Review as well as a forthcoming essay that will soon appear in the Stanford Law Review Online.
Adjunct Professor Neil Pedersen presented his annual “Hit the Floor Running” at Western State on January 12. Part of a CLE program organized by Pam Davidson, Professor Pedersen’s program provided guidance for young attorneys on topics such as problem identification and problem solving, the written and spoken word, time management, professional conduct and ethics, and business development. Professor Pedersen also presented Surviving and Thriving in the Practice of Law at the Orange County Bar Association’s Last Dash MCLE event, held at Chapman Law School the same day. Much of the content from both presentations came from the curriculum of Professor Pedersen’s Law Practice Management and Technology course co-taught with Adjunct Professor Carolyn Dillinger.
The CAP-Impact Podcast, a podcast hosted by the Capital Center for Law & Policy at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law featured an interview with Professor Jennifer Koh in a recent episode. Entitled “Immigration Law & Reform with Professor Jennifer Koh,” the podcast discusses her “work at the intersection of immigration law and criminal law, her new nonprofit project – the Orange County Justice Fund –and being cited in a Supreme Court ruling by the Notorious RBG.” The podcast was released on January 17, 2019 and is available on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Stitcher Radio and most other podcast downloading sites.
On October 18, adjunct professor Carolyn Dillinger moderated the law panel, “Safeguard Your Technology & Business” at SMB TechFest at the Business Expo in Anaheim. Professor Dillinger organized the panel, which included WSCL alumnus Karima Gulick, to discuss the correct categorization of independent contractors and employees post Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, and tax implications of 26 U.S. Code ⸹ 1202 small business stock for eligible C corporations planning to grow and sell in at least five years. The audience consisted of about 200 technology company owners and staff, including online viewers.
Professor Cheyanna Jaffke was sworn in to the Montana State Bar by the Honorable Julian Bailey. The swearing-in occurred in the Western State Moot Court Room on Monday, November 19. Professor Jaffke is now an attorney in Idaho, California and Montana.
On November 14, Professor Cheyanna Jaffke and her research assistant, Brandon Swinford, presented at the 22nd annual AB1058 child support training conference put on by the Judicial Council of California, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel of Orange County. Their presentation with WSCL Alum Diana Renteria was titled, “Where is the money? An exploration of the 2019 Federal Income Tax Laws and the Practical Application in Support Calculations.” Professor Jaffke and Brandon were responsible for providing the nearly 150 attendees with an update on the federal income tax laws.
Professor Jennifer Koh has published, When Shadow Removals Collide: Searching for Solutions to the Legal Black Holes Created by Expedited Removal and Reinstatement, 96 Wash. U. L. Rev. 337 (2018). The Article explores two of the most common forms of shadow removals (i.e., removals that bypass the immigration courts), expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, and the collision of the two. The Article traces the operation of the two removal processes, both independently and in combination with each other. It emphasizes the harsh statutory bars on judicial and habeas review, and the resulting inability of the federal judiciary to ameliorate the harshness of removal in this context. The Article then suggests that the use of reinstatement based on prior expedited removal orders fails the basic administrative law requirement that federal agencies demonstrate reasoned decision-making and avoid arbitrary or capricious action. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Judulang v. Holder, which applied arbitrary and capricious review in the deportation context, the Article encourages courts to more closely scrutinize the use of reinstatement based on expedited removal.