Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

DOJ's first-ever use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court raises due process concerns, but could offer more legitimacy than current immigration proceedings.

The attempt to condition states' counterterrorism funding on changes to election rules is unlawful and likely to be challenged in court.

New data shows how mass firings, loyalist replacements, and pressure tactics are turning U.S. immigration courts into a deportation enforcement arm.

How the Roberts Court interpreted a simple statutory phrase to give the executive branch license to undercut asylum protections at the U.S. border.

Lawful permanent residents are left to wonder when it is safe to travel for business, family reasons, or pleasure without jeopardizing their status and day-to-day lives.

A comprehensive study of immigration habeas litigation from the second Trump administration, assessing how courts responded to protect judicial authority and individual rights.

The Minnesota Protocol frames these killings for what they are: violations of the right to life due to excessive use of force by law enforcement officials during protests.

The Supreme Court should dismiss the case of Blanche v. Lau as improvidently granted. The stakes are too high, and the facts are mismatched to the legal question at hand.

Despite a vast investment security system, the lack of a functioning NSC risks undermining agency coordination, rulemaking coherence, predictability, and enforcement.

The Trump administration's executive order on mail-in voting is unconstitutional. States and Congress—not the President—have authority to regulate federal elections.

If Secretary Mullin is serious about reforming DHS, then he should consider the following list of suggestions, based on information provided by whistleblowers.

DHS sits at the center of a rapidly converging threat landscape. Now more than any time since DHS’s history, it begs for an extraordinary leadership team.