United States v. Texas
On April 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Texas. The case involves the arguments put forward by twenty-six states, challenging the President’s November of 2014 Executive Action, which could have made around 5 million parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents (known as DAPA) eligible to apply to have their deportation deferred. It would also have slightly expanded the class of pre-existing eligibility for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), already in effect since 2012.
Memory Battles and National Human Rights Trials
I teach transitional justice at New England Law | Boston, and this past week I began the unit on national human rights trials. This topic is one of my favorites due largely to my experience observing national human rights trials like that of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and former Guatemalan leader José Efraín Ríos Montt. Fujimori is currently serving a twenty-five year sentence in Peru for his role in serious human rights crimes during the 1990s while president; while Ríos Montt has been under house arrest awaiting the resumption of his trial since 2013, when the Guatemalan Constitutional Court pointed to procedural errors as a reason to annul his conviction for crimes against humanity and genocide for his role in massacres of indigenous communities in 1982–83.
Posts by Author
- Christine Abely 1
- Lawrence Friedman and Victor Hansen 1
- Nicole Noël and Chance Meyer 1
- Allison Dussias 1
- Tigran Eldred 1
- Lawrence Friedman 21
- Judith Greenberg 2
- Victor Hansen 4
- Dina Francesca Haynes 7
- Aliza Hochman 1
- Peter Karol 2
- Lisa Laplante 2
- Sean Lyness 5
- Peter Manus 4
- Chanal McCain 1
- Lynn Muster 1
- James Rooney 2
- Kent Schenkel 1
- David Siegel 1
- Jordan Singer 6
- Monica Teixeira de Sousa 1
- Eliot Tracz 2
- Natasha Varyani 2
- Sidra Vitale 1