Author Archives: Sara Ellingrod

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Understanding of the Power of Language Is a Welcome Addition to the Supreme Court (The Torch)

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Understanding of the Power of Language is a Welcome Addition to the Supreme Court


APRIL 7, 2022

At the recent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson about her seemingly “conscious choice” to avoid harmful language in her legal writings to acknowledge the inherent humanity of all people who come before her court, including immigrants.

“Judges are the only branch of government who are required to write our opinions, to explain our decisions,” Judge Jackson responded. “I have long believed, in that capacity, that our clarity and language matters.”

Judge Jackson’s clear understanding of the power of naming in the pursuit of equal justice under the law only further demonstrates the urgent need to confirm her to the United States Supreme Court.

Photo on Wikimedia Commons

As a federal judge, Judge Jackson has grappled with difficult legal questions with significant impact on immigrant communities. In each of these cases, Judge Jackson did what we would want and expect any good judge to do—weigh the facts of each case with relevant law and precedent to render a decision.

While not all her decisions have been favorable to immigrants, she has consistently and deliberately forgone the use of terms like “illegal” or “alien” when describing immigrants in all her cases. Writing in two separate cases concerning immigration policy, Judge Jackson rejected the dehumanizing terms, which historically appear in statutes and other legal writings, and instead used the terms “undocumented” and “non-citizen.”

Some may not immediately realize the significance of this intentional use of language. But for those of us fighting for immigrant justice, it’s a noteworthy and encouraging shift with consequences that reverberate beyond the courtroom.

Anti-immigrant forces have long weaponized dehumanizing language to advance their political interests. No one in recent history has done so to greater effect than Donald Trump, whose extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric represented the culmination of decades of escalating efforts to scapegoat immigrants, stoke fear, and divide Americans to retain power.

Advocates for immigrants’ rights, in contrast, have worked for years to push lawmakers to drop the use of these de-humanizing terms. These successful efforts have prompted local governments to remove such terms from official documents and sparked debates at federal agencies about doing the same, including the Library of Congress. Within months of taking office, President Biden directed immigration agencies to stop using “illegal alien” in favor of “undocumented non-citizen.”

Advocates have similarly pushed news organizations to rethink their language. In 2013, the Associated Press, whose stylebook is often referenced by other newsrooms, decided to stop using “illegal” to describe a person. And while debates about language continue in newsrooms, other news organizations have made similar editorial decisions.

The truth is that naming does matter. And when it comes to the law, it matters even more.

Throughout history, the Court has influenced American culture and public opinion – for better and worse – through its use of language. Decisions in Dred Scott and Plessy, for example, each used language that dehumanized Black Americans to legitimize and perpetuate the racist and unequal treatment of Black people. Both rulings are now broadly regarded as some of the Court’s gravest errors. But language can also accelerate greater social change, as was the case with Obergefell and the advancement of marriage equality for LGBTQ people. A justice who understands the power of language in the law is a welcome addition to the Court.

As a member of the federal judiciary and potentially of our nation’s highest court, Judge Jackson’s interpretation of the law and her writings will set a framework for future jurists. Her insistent rejection of dehumanizing anti-immigrant terms has major ripple effects beyond the letter of the law. After all, it’s the presence of these terms in our laws that are often cited in other spaces to justify their continued use.

Senators who are truly interested in fulfilling their constitutional duty to vet the Supreme Court nominee’s qualifications should take note. Confirming a justice who understands the power of naming and has consistently recognized the humanity and dignity of all people is not only a welcome addition to the Court, it’s monumental for the advancement of immigrant justice and human rights.

Lisa Graybill is NILC’s Legal Director.

Why is the Government Defending Racist Laws? (The Torch)

Why is the Government Defending Racist Laws?

MARCH 23, 2022

Initially, the Biden administration took some positive pro-immigrant first steps, such as ordering a review of federal immigration policy to develop “welcoming” policies, directing federal agencies to cease using dehumanizing terms, and rescinding the discriminatory Muslim and African Bans. While the administration has made important progress, it has also taken a number of steps backward. Unbeknownst to many, the Muslim and African Bans, for example, continue to harm tens of thousands of people as the Department of Justice continues to defend their lasting impacts.

A particularly disheartening contradiction is currently taking place in courtrooms across America. Even as the government’s lawyers refrain from using offensive language, they continue to pursue numerous prosecutions against immigrants by relying upon a criminal law with undeniably racist origins and impact.

Modern immigration law has its roots deeply intertwined with openly racist sentiments.  Notoriously, the Chinese Exclusion Act – an infamous law brought about by white nativists in the late 1800s – was one of the first immigration restrictions the United States enacted. While some prior racist policies have ended, today’s immigration law remains rife with racially targeted restrictions and punishments.

One of the most striking examples of that residual racism is the statute criminalizing returning to the U.S. after being removed. Under that statute, a person may be sentenced to federal prison for as many as 20 years for the mere act of returning to the U.S. When enacted in the 1920s, that statute was explicitly intended to advance white supremacist eugenics goals. A century later, those original racist intentions continue to align exactly with how the statute is still used today—with Latinx people making up 99 percent of those convicted today.

The Unconstitutionality of the Illegal Reentry Statute

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all the equal protection of federal law, and courts will hold unconstitutional those federal laws that passed with discriminatory intent. Laws that begin with a discriminatory intent remain unconstitutional if reenacted without Congress addressing the prior discrimination. Congress has never acknowledged the racist basis of the illegal reentry law, let alone sought to definitively undo it. Simultaneously, the statute has become one of the leading drivers of federal prosecutions and incarcerations, punishing hundreds of thousands of immigrants over decades.

Federal public defenders across the country have sought to protect their clients from the racist reentry statute. Specifically, they have presented trial courts with evidence of the statute’s racist intentions and the dramatically disproportionate conviction rates for Latinx people.

At last, on August 25, 2021, a federal district court agreed. In United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, Judge Miranda Du of the District of Nevada issued a powerful ruling, in which she articulated the unconstitutional origins and impacts of the reentry statutes in great detail, and dismissed a prosecution as a result.

Judge Du explained how the statute was originally grounded in racism and agreed that that intent continued when Congress reenacted the law in 1952. Judge Du noted extensive evidence that confirmed this offensive intent and explained that the statute presently continues to harm the same targeted populations.

The Government Continues to Defend the Racist Reentry Statutes

Following Judge Du’s ruling, the next step for an administration committed to equal justice should have been quite simple: do nothing. Judge Du’s convincing opinion provided every reason for the government to abandon using these racially motivated and applied statutes.

They chose not to.

Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash

Shortly after Judge Du’s ruling, the Biden administration appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Simultaneously, the Biden administration continues to defend another Ninth Circuit appeal where the judge ruled in the opposite direction. The stakes of this escalation are dramatic: a ruling contrary to Judge Du’s could close the door to future challenges to a law plainly rooted in white supremacist ideology in the nation’s largest circuit.

While the government’s decision to continue this fight is itself problematic for racial justice, the specifics of the government’s arguments are even worse.

First, the government has argued that the courts should be lenient in determining whether the statute really was racist, applying “rational basis review.”  The government takes the stance that it does not matter that the statute was passed with openly racist intent because the racist language itself wasn’t included in the law’s actual text.

Second, the government has argued that the “plenary power” doctrine justifies its actions. The plenary power doctrine provides that courts have few, if any, powers to assess federal immigration laws. The doctrine’s origins are as disturbing as the origin of the reentry statute. The Supreme Court first deployed the doctrine in 1889 to uphold a law that expanded a prior ban on Chinese nationals immigrating to the U.S., using openly racist language casting Chinese nationals as “invaders” and a “danger to the country.”

Taking a look at the government’s sole supporter in the Ninth Circuit case reveals further shamefulness of its actions. Only an anti-immigrant hate group has filed a brief in support of the government’s position.

The Movement Responds

In contrast, a broad coalition of movement organizations has joined in the fight to uphold Judge Du’s correct determination that the reentry statutes are unconstitutional. On March 21, dozens of organizations filed briefs in the Ninth Circuit providing further details on the racist origins and impacts of the laws.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is proud to have been among those organizations. In a brief drafted along with LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and which four other nonprofit organizations signed, NILC provided additional detail about the harms the reentry statutes inflict upon Latinx people and their communities.

Data discussed in NILC’s brief indicate that the reentry statute represents one of the offenses most likely to result in incarceration. Once incarcerated, non-citizens experience harsher jail sentences because they are ineligible for lower security facilities and numerous rehabilitative and educational programs. They are also nearly certain to be removed from the country. Moreover, the dramatic incarceration rate combines with involving local and federal law enforcement in immigration enforcement to further racial profiling of communities of color.

While NILC and its allies proudly stand together in this fight, we are dismayed that this fight is even necessary. If the Biden administration is committed to a just and humane immigration system and correcting the system’s past racist harms, it needs to stop defending this law.

Max Wolson is a NILC Staff Attorney.

NILC Statement on Biden’s “Status Update” on Remain in Mexico Policy

September 16, 2021

Madison Allman, [email protected], 202-384-1279

NILC Statement on the Biden’s “Status Update” on Remain in Mexico Policy 

WASHINGTON — Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement in response to the Biden administration’s U.S. district court filing about its “good faith” efforts to resume the Remain in Mexico policy:

“By failing to take immediate, concrete steps to terminate the Remain in Mexico policy, the administration has not lived up to President Biden’s promise to restore full access to asylum and build a 21st century immigration system that values our collective humanity and dignity.

“The Remain in Mexico policy was a centerpiece of Donald Trump’s cruel, anti-immigrant agenda and put thousands of people seeking safety in grave danger. Choosing any course short of terminating this unlawful policy would be a capitulation to an emerging conservative political playbook being used to imperil President Biden’s entire progressive agenda.

“This is a key moment for President Biden to lead with conviction, issue a new termination memo, and restart asylum processing at the southern border. There is no room for Remain in Mexico — or any policy like it — in a country that strives to be a beacon of hope for those seeking safety and freedom.”