Immigration Separation of Powers and the President's Power to Preempt

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Notre Dame Law Review Pub Date : 2014-02-17 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2397402
Catherine Y. Kim
{"title":"Immigration Separation of Powers and the President's Power to Preempt","authors":"Catherine Y. Kim","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2397402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the unique separation-of-powers issues raised in the immigration context, focusing on the respective powers of Congress and the President to preempt State law. Pursuant to traditional understanding, Congress and only Congress is constitutionally vested with the authority to displace conflicting State laws. Outside of the immigration context, the Supreme Court nonetheless has invoked competing theories of executive power to justify extending preemptive effect to executive decisions, while at the same time imposing significant doctrinal restrictions on its exercise. In its recent decision in Arizona v. United States, however, the Court departed from these existing doctrinal restrictions to hold that a conflict with the potential exercise of executive prosecutorial discretion suffices to displace State law. In doing so, it signaled an unprecedented expansion of the executive’s power to preempt, one without apparent limit. This article argues that considerations unique to immigration law undermine the utility of existing doctrinal frameworks for limiting executive preemption. Nonetheless, some restriction remains warranted. Given the limitations of the existing doctrines, it proposes a new approach to cabining executive authority in this context.","PeriodicalId":47176,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2397402","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article explores the unique separation-of-powers issues raised in the immigration context, focusing on the respective powers of Congress and the President to preempt State law. Pursuant to traditional understanding, Congress and only Congress is constitutionally vested with the authority to displace conflicting State laws. Outside of the immigration context, the Supreme Court nonetheless has invoked competing theories of executive power to justify extending preemptive effect to executive decisions, while at the same time imposing significant doctrinal restrictions on its exercise. In its recent decision in Arizona v. United States, however, the Court departed from these existing doctrinal restrictions to hold that a conflict with the potential exercise of executive prosecutorial discretion suffices to displace State law. In doing so, it signaled an unprecedented expansion of the executive’s power to preempt, one without apparent limit. This article argues that considerations unique to immigration law undermine the utility of existing doctrinal frameworks for limiting executive preemption. Nonetheless, some restriction remains warranted. Given the limitations of the existing doctrines, it proposes a new approach to cabining executive authority in this context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移民三权分立和总统先发制人的权力
本文探讨了在移民背景下提出的独特的三权分立问题,重点是国会和总统各自的权力,以优先于州法律。根据传统的理解,国会且只有国会在宪法上被赋予取代相互冲突的州法律的权力。尽管如此,在移民问题之外,最高法院还是援引了与之竞争的行政权力理论,为将先发制人的效力扩大到行政决定辩护,同时对其行使施加了重大的理论限制。然而,在最近的亚利桑那州诉美国案的裁决中,法院脱离了这些现有的理论限制,认为与可能行使行政检察自由裁量权的冲突足以取代州法。在这样做的过程中,它标志着行政部门先发制人的权力史无前例地扩大,而且没有明显的限制。本文认为,移民法特有的考虑削弱了限制行政优先权的现有理论框架的效用。尽管如此,一些限制仍然是必要的。鉴于现有理论的局限性,本文提出了在这方面联合行政权力的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1925, a group of eager and idealistic students founded the Notre Dame Lawyer. Its name was changed in 1982 to the Notre Dame Law Review, but all generations have remained committed to the original founders’ vision of a law review “synonymous with respect for law, and jealous of any unjust attacks upon it.” Today, the Law Review maintains its tradition of excellence, and its membership includes some of the most able and distinguished judges, professors, and practitioners in the country. Entirely student edited, the Law Review offers its members an invaluable occasion for training in precise analysis of legal problems and in clear and cogent presentation of legal issues.
期刊最新文献
Préface Does Docket Size Matter? Revisiting Empirical Accounts of the Supreme Court's Incredibly Shrinking Docket Prior Art in the District Court Acknowledgments The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity. Volume 6: War and Peace, Sex and Violence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1