As amended after the Supreme Court’s decision in Immigration & Nationality Services v. Chadha, the National Emergencies Act (NEA) vests the President with crisis powers that cannot be terminated or taken away even by majorities in both Houses of Congress. President Donald Trump’s 2019 declaration of a “national emergency” at the southern border of the United States as a pretext to secure funding for his border wall with Mexico threw into sharp relief the perils and shortcomings of this imbalanced arrangement. This Note argues first that the President lacks any inherent emergency powers; any such powers that might exist belong to Congress and are within Congress’ discretion to delegate to the President. In turn, this Note contends that the post-Chadha change to the emergency termination procedure undermined the statute’s basic efficacy in service of formalist constitutional theory. Under a revisionist, functionalist reading of Chadha, the original emergency termination procedure was constitutionally permissible as a political legislative veto. Alternatively, the recently proposed ARTICLE ONE Act would help to return the NEA to its original role of constraining executive use of emergency authorities.

In recent years, many U.S. detention facilities have faced intense scrutiny for failing to comply with the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement — a binding agreement that outlines national standards for the detention and release of migrant minors. Among other Flores Settlement violations, a 2018 class-action lawsuit revealed that a detention facility in Texas was unlawfully administering psychotropic medications to migrant minors under its supervision. The class members in Flores v. Sessions alleged receiving psychotropic drugs without parental or legally authorized consent, in addition to experiencing abusive medical practices. In response, the U.S. District Court in Flores v. Sessions ordered that the detention facility follow Texas child welfare laws and regulations when administering psychotropic medications to detained minors.

After the Flores v. Sessions order, detention facilities across the country have looked to their respective state child welfare laws and policies for instruction on how to authorize psychotropic medications to detained migrant minors. At present, state laws and policies governing consent and assent to psychotropic treatment vary across jurisdictions and are not tailored to the needs of migrant minors detained separately from their families. Of concern is the lack of guidance on who should consent for a migrant minor when their parent or legal guardian is not available; and the lack of procedure on how and when to obtain consent and assent from migrant youth. To address these outstanding issues, this Note proposes a national consent and assent framework for minors undergoing psychotropic treatments at U.S. detention facilities. By incorporating Loretta Kopelman’s “Best Interests Standard,” this framework will help facilitate the administration of psychotropic drugs in a manner that respects the health, safety, and rights of migrant youth.

In a recent college admissions bribery scheme, a network of wealthy parents paid entrance exam proctors, admissions insiders, and medical providers to rig the system that enables students with disabilities to receive testing accommodations. By purchasing false disability diagnoses, these parents procured testing accommodations and facilitated cheating on standardized tests — all in an effort to gain admission to top-tier universities. As a result, disability rights advocates fear a backlash against students with legitimate needs for disability accommodations in the college admissions process.

The purposes of this Note are to explore the practical consequences of the scandal for students with learning disabilities and to present a legal framework for preserving disability rights. This Note proposes: (1) adopting a purposive statutory interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008 to ensure that the rights of learning-disabled students are not violated; and (2) implementing this interpretation through legislative and regulatory amendments as well as judicial construction. The Note begins with a summary of the college admissions scandal and its exploitation of disability accommodations. Part II examines the legislative framework and case law that govern testing accommodations, including the ADA and its 2008 amendments (ADAAA). Part III outlines the trend of treating prior receipt of accommodations as a quasi-prerequisite for future accommodations, and how this trend discriminates against disabled students with recent diagnoses. Part III also details how the emphasis on prior receipt of accommodations is contrary to the purpose of the ADAAA and proposes adopting a purposive statutory and regulatory interpretation to ensure that first-time applicants for accommodations are not unduly penalized. Part IV identifies concrete methods to implement this interpretation and adequately safeguard the rights of learning-disabled students, including legislative amendment of 42 U.S.C. § 12102, regulatory amendment of 28 C.F.R. § 36.309, and corresponding judicial construction.

Undocumented workers in the United States number nearly eight million and are key contributors to major industries and regional economies across the country. Yet undocumented workers often hesitate to report labor law violations due to the fear of making themselves known to immigration authorities. In recent years, employers have felt emboldened to ignore the labor rights of undocumented workers amidst a political climate marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric and increased government monitoring of immigrants. Although federal, state, and local law all provide criminal and civil remedies for undocumented workers who have experienced workplace violations, these forms of relief do not protect undocumented workers from their greatest fear — deportation. Consequently, many undocumented workers continue to suffer workplace abuse in silence.

This Note explores two complementary federal government reforms to insulate undocumented workers who report workplace abuse from deportation: 1) expansion of the U nonimmigrant status visa program, and 2) restriction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ability to deport individuals who have pending actions against employers. This Note then analyzes proposed legislation that fixes the shortcomings of these attempts at reform: The Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act (POWER Act), most recently introduced in Congress in November of 2019. Finally, given enforcement trends that emerged under the Trump Administration, this Note critically assesses the viability of the POWER Act and considers ways to bolster the legislation’s protections for undocumented workers.