Turner Plus Three — A Mid-Symposium Reviewing and Focusing Post

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Jim Greiner says:

    Hi, David, Richard,

    Thanks to you both (and to concurringopinions) for organizing this symposium. I’ve learned a great deal already, and am looking forward to learning more. There’s one aspect of Turner which was not mentioned in the opinion but which came up repeatedly in the oral argument (and felt like the elephant in the room): the immigration context, where detention is commonplace (and where, spinning off John P’s post, kicking the can to the states using “wise policy” language is not an option). It felt from the oral argument that the justices were groping desparately for a line of reasoning that would allow them to avoid finding a RTC in immigration proceedings. I’d really love the benefit of the symposium participants’ wisdom on this. Did anyone feel the same way about the oral argument (I just read a transcript)? And regardless, does anyone have any guidance on this?

    Again, many thanks to you both!

  2. Richard Zorza says:

    A very good question. It does seem from the oral argument transcript that Justice Kenned was interested in the immigration issues and their implications. But, speaking personally, it seems that the Court ended up staying well away from the issue in the opinion. Immigration has some very powerful stories (like little kids, many of whom come here on their own looking for parents– see Sonia Nazario’s transcendent book “Enriques Journey” (http://www.enriquesjourney.com/author.html).) As to the legal issues, time will tell.