Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on LinkedIn
The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.
Regulations, like other legal instruments, often arrive in lumps. An agency, for example, can issue a rule addressing many different subjects, each of which could be split off and issued as a separate regulation.
Imagine you go to Toronto for a weekend trip with your family. While driving home to Detroit, a border agent pulls you aside, brings you into an isolated room, and asks you, seemingly out of nowhere, “How many times a day do you pray?”