Harvard Law Review Looks at Two Lower Court Immigration Decisions
The March 2022 issue of the Harvard Law Review includes two comments on lower court decisions that might interest ImmigrationProf readers.
Alasaad v. MayorkasBy the Harvard Law ReviewSearches of electronic devices by border officials have more than quadrupled in the last decade. Lower courts have split over the level of suspicion required for these searches. Routine border searches, like a search of a traveler’s suitcase, do not require any cause due to their long-recognized exception from the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. Nonroutine border searches are constitutional if the government’s interests outweigh the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests. Are searches of cell phones “routine”? According to the First Circuit, yes — and even if not, the border search exception should reflect the government’s broad interest in preventing crime. Looking to recent precedent on electronic device searches and long-standing precedent on border searches, this piece disagrees on both fronts.
Ndambi v. CoreCivic, IncBy the Harvard Law ReviewAcross the country, immigrants in privately run detention facilities work for as little as $1 a day. Recently, the Fourth Circuit held that these workers are not protected by federal minimum wage laws. This author argues why that holding conflicts with the purpose behind these laws: to protect not just workers, but industries too.
KJ