Peter Margulies
pmargs.bsky.social
Peter Margulies
@pmargs.bsky.social
Prof, Roger Williams University School of Law, teaching National Security and Immigration; loves music, esp. Miles, Mozart & Monk; learns daily "complexity of objects and imperfections of human faculties" (Madison, F 37).
7) If the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms Judge Coman’s decision, SCOTUS may ultimately decide whether the case of #Khalil becomes a comparable milestone
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
6) There’s no clear statement in the foreign-policy provision; an analogous clear statement test in Ex parte Endo helped end the Japanese-American internment and in Kent v. Dulles dimmed the McCarthy Era blacklist
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
5) David Martin & I have explained that a statute that ends LPR status so abruptly must include a “clear statement” that Congress planned this outcome: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Khalil Case and the Difference Lawful Permanent Resident Status Makes
Without a clear statement from Congress signaling that this broad authority extends to LPRs, courts should hold that LPRs are beyond the provision’s scope.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
4) For LPRs, who have reasonably relied on building a life in the US, such amorphous charges don’t provide the clear notice that Due Process requires
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
3) To meet this test, Sec’y of State Rubio asserted that Khalil had engaged in “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities”—there’s nothing more concrete in Sec’y Rubio’s letter: apnews.com/article/mahm...
Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government cites its power to deport people for beliefs
The U.S. government has submitted a two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio as its main evidence in its deportation case against Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil.
apnews.com
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
2) In cases of political speech, INA sec. 1227(a)(4)(C), which Judge Coman cited, turns on the Secretary of State’s discretion to find that a noncitizen whom the provision covers has compromised a “compelling US foreign policy interest”
April 12, 2025 at 12:08 AM
13) SG invocation of intrusive NLRB rulemaking chases a chimera, not an actual risk
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
12) The collapse of the Biden joint-employer rule has pushed the NLRB back to its adjudicatory origins, with no forays into regs on the horizon
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
11) Biden reg w/ broad definition of joint employer foundered due to clash with underlying statute & Loper Bright’s overruling of Chevron deference
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
10) Both Trump I and Biden hoped to provided more stable guidance thru regs
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
9) NLRB had earlier provided this guidance through adjudication, with oscillating outcomes that varied with POTUS
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
8) Identity of employer is ancillary to NLRB’s decisions re whether employer has committed unfair labor practices
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
7) The Biden admin. joint-employer rule with broad definition sought to replace narrower Trump I rule
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
6) But this exception proves the rule of NLRB preference for adjudication over regs
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
5) SG makes much of tangled NLRB rulemaking re “joint employer” who can be liable for unfair labor practices; this definition matters for firms contracting for services from other companies
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
4) Preference for adjudication over rulemaking dates to the NLRB’s founding
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
3) Bulk of NLRB activity is adjudicatory, which can breed “policy oscillation” w/ changes in administration, per NYU labor prof Sam Estreicher: scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcont...
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
2) SG says rulemaking is executive in nature, not adjudicatory, and points to regs from NLRB, but gov’t overstates the case
April 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings, which allege amorphous “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities.” David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Khalil Case and the Difference Lawful Permanent Resident Status Makes
Without a clear statement from Congress signaling that this broad authority extends to LPRs, courts should hold that LPRs are beyond the provision’s scope.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 10, 2025 at 7:52 PM
In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings, which allege amorphous “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities.” David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Khalil Case and the Difference Lawful Permanent Resident Status Makes
Without a clear statement from Congress signaling that this broad authority extends to LPRs, courts should hold that LPRs are beyond the provision’s scope.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 10, 2025 at 7:47 PM
In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s filings, which allege amorphous "antisemitic protests & disruptive activities." David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Khalil Case and the Difference Lawful Permanent Resident Status Makes
Without a clear statement from Congress signaling that this broad authority extends to LPRs, courts should hold that LPRs are beyond the provision’s scope.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 10, 2025 at 7:46 PM
In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings; David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Khalil Case and the Difference Lawful Permanent Resident Status Makes
Without a clear statement from Congress signaling that this broad authority extends to LPRs, courts should hold that LPRs are beyond the provision’s scope.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 10, 2025 at 7:42 PM
7) INA sec. 1227(a)(4)(C), the basis for Sec’y Rubio’s letter, only cites “adverse foreign policy consequences” to the US, but doesn’t expressly include LPRs; courts should read this provision as not applying to LPRs, given their reliance interests
April 10, 2025 at 7:35 PM