Call for Papers: Feminist Judgments Volume on Rewritten Immigration Law Opinions

Kathleen Kim at Loyola Law School writes: We are finalizing the line-up of U.S. Supreme Court cases that will be re-rewritten from critical feminist perspectives, especially those that intersect with race, national origin, sexuality, religion, disability, and/or socioeconomic status. (Each rewritten opinion will be followed by commentary on the significance of the original decision and the intervention that the rewritten opinion brings.)

We are seeking authors who would like to re-write the following opinions:

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) 
• Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982)

Please email us if you are interested in re-writing one of those opinions by March 15th. The first drafts of re-written opinions will be due approximately July 30, 2021.  The deadlines indicated in the initial attached Call for Proposals have been extended.

The full announcement appears below:

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributing authors to rewrite judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Immigration Law Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and legal experts to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Stanchi, Berger and Crawford co-authored a Texas Law Review article that discusses the series. Subsequent volumes in the series have focused on different courts and different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of U.S. Supreme Court immigration decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.

Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Immigration Law Opinions editors Kathleen Kim, Kevin Lapp and Jennifer Lee, seek prospective authors to rewrite immigration law opinions covering a range of topics. With the support of an Advisory Panel1, the editors have selected a list of cases to be rewritten (as noted below). Potential authors are welcome to suggest other cases, though certain constraints (including a preference for avoiding cases that have already been or soon will be rewritten for other volumes in this series) may preclude their addition to the volume. We also seek authors to provide brief commentary on the original and rewritten cases.

Rewritten opinions may be reimagined majority opinions, dissents, and/or concurrences, as appropriate to the case. Feminist judgment writers will be bound by law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision (with a 10,000-word maximum for the rewritten opinion). Commentators will explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference the feminist judgment might have made going forward (4,000-word maximum for the commentary). The volume editors invite applications that make critical interventions in immigration law by advancing feminist norms and advocacy. We especially encourage intersectional critiques of immigration law, that consider issues of gender alongside race, sexuality, national origin, religion, disability, age, socioeconomic status, and/or other concerns.

Those interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary on one of the rewritten immigration law cases should email the volume editors (kathleen.kim@lls.edu, kevin.lapp@lls.edu, jenniferjlee@temple.edu) and state “Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Immigration Law Opinions” in the subject line. In the body of the email, please indicate whether you are interested in writing an opinion or providing a commentary and specify one or more of the cases from the list below that you would like to rewrite or comment on. You may also suggest a case not listed.