Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
159 Articles
The Latest from the Alien Terrorist Removal Court
Expert analysis of how the first-ever case put before the long-dormant Alien Terrorist Removal Court came to a close.
The Looming Terrorist Threats to America
25 years after 9/11, U.S. counterterrorism officials are being asked to do more with less.
The Government’s Unexplained Reversal on Social Media Disclosure Requirements
Social media disclosure requirements implicate fundamental First Amendment rights, and the public has a right to know why they were implemented.
No Warrant, No Problem: Administrative Subpoena Powers and an Outdated Fourth Amendment Doctrine
Numerous federal agencies possess statutory authority to obtain a wide range of sensitive information without advance judicial approval or probable cause of illegal activity.
“In Focus” Syllabus Supplements: ICE and CBP Operations in Minnesota and Other States (2025–2026)
This syllabus supplement offers curated articles intended to be combined with traditional casebooks in a law or higher ed classroom.
Free Speech, Immigration Law, and Truth Telling at UCLA Law’s Recent Federalist Society Event
An immigration expert considers questions that might have been asked at DHS General Counsel Percival's UCLA Law Federalist Society event.
The Just Security Podcast: Uncharted Territory: The Alien Terrorist Removal Court Hears Its First Case
Dani Schulkin is joined by Steve Vladeck and Jess Dawgert to discuss the first-ever case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
How the Alien Terrorist Removal Court Could Be Good for the U.S. Immigration System
DOJ's first-ever use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court raises due process concerns, but could offer more legitimacy than current immigration proceedings.
No, Trump Can’t Withhold Anti-Terrorism Funds to Pressure States to Change Their Election Rules
The attempt to condition states' counterterrorism funding on changes to election rules is unlawful and likely to be challenged in court.
Key Trump Deportation Strategies: Removing, Replacing, and Pressuring Immigration Judges
New data shows how mass firings, loyalist replacements, and pressure tactics are turning U.S. immigration courts into a deportation enforcement arm.
Abandoning Principles: Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Denying Asylum to Arriving Migrants
How the Roberts Court interpreted a simple statutory phrase to give the executive branch license to undercut asylum protections at the U.S. border.
In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court Rewards the Solicitor General’s Bait-and-Switch at Green Card Holders’ Expense
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.