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 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.
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.
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.
On October 20, Professors Jennifer Koh and Sabrina Rivera spoke on a panel entitled, “Immigration Enforcement and the Rule of Law” at the Western Law Professors of Color/Conference of Asian Pacific American Law Faculty Conference at the UNLV Boyd School of Law. Professor Rivera shared her insights on immigration enforcement gained as a result of visiting immigrant detainees as the Theo Lacy Jail in Orange, California as well as her experience representing an individual with a viable claim to U.S. citizenship who had been detained by federal immigration authorities at that facility. Professor Koh shared her recent law review article, 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), which examines the legal regimes governing expedited removal and reinstatement, and argues for the federal courts to use arbitrary and capricious review to invalidate the use of reinstatement based on prior expedited removal orders.
On October 11, Professor Jennifer Koh spoke on a panel entitled, “Bias in and Outside the Courtroom,” which explored implicit bias in the legal profession. The panel was organized by the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association, and was attended by a number of Western State Law students. The other panelists were Judge Elizabeth Macias, Judge Andrew de la Cruz, and attorney Daniel Alexander.