This year, students in the Criminal Justice Clinic had the opportunity to represent individuals serving life sentences in Maryland for crimes committed as juveniles. Maryland is one of only three states in the U.S. that give their governors final authority to deny parole to people serving life-with-parole sentences. Even if the Maryland Parole Commission recommends a “lifer” for parole, the Governor may reject the Commission’s recommendation and deny release for any reason. In 1995, Maryland’s then-Governor, Parris Glendening, announced a policy of refusing to grant parole regardless of a candidate’s growth or rehabilitation. Every Governor since has followed suit. Of the more than 200 individuals serving juvenile life sentences, none has been paroled in over two decades.
Our client was only fourteen years old at the time of the crime underlying his life sentence. When we met him, we learned about all of the things he has done to become a better person during his time in prison, and we saw that he is a different man from the child who committed a terrible crime decades ago. Despite this growth and progress, he may never see life outside of prison due to the state’s unforgiving parole system.
In a series of decisions issued over the last decade, including Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that sentencing a juvenile to a lifetime in prison without a “meaningful opportunity for release” violates the Eighth Amendment in all but the rarest of cases.
This spring, we voiced our concerns before the Maryland House of Delegates, which was considering House Bill 723. The proposed legislation, supported by the Maryland ACLU and the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, seeks to repeal the provisions in Maryland’s parole statute that give the Governor final say in parole decisions for individuals serving life sentences.
On February 14, we testified before the House Judiciary Committee, urging the Delegates to support HB 723. We talked about our client, a man who is the epitome of someone who deserves parole because of the steps he has taken to change. We argued that the purpose of the parole system is to encourage inmates to rehabilitate and prove themselves to be worthy of release. We pointed out the cognitive and emotional differences between adults and juveniles, which have caused the Supreme Court to distinguish the two when looking at the constitutionality of a life sentence without parole. Finally, we asked the delegates to recognize the reality of the situation and acknowledge that even though Maryland law theoretically provides the possibility of parole to juvenile lifers, under current law, none have a “meaningful opportunity for release.”
HB 723 passed in the House of Delegates in March 2017. It is currently pending before the Maryland Senate. You can check the status of the legislation here.
In addition to the clients in AUWCL’s Immigrant Justice and International Human Rights Law Clinics, many of the Clinical Program’s other clients have immigration-related issues. Even if clients did not initially came to us for immigration services, many are concerned about how the current administration’s Executive Orders (EOs) on immigration matters could affect them. In response to these concerns, a group of Clinical Program students, led by Professors Claire Donohue, Sherizaan Minwalla, Lauren Onkeles-Klein, and Andrea Parra, organized and led a Teach-In called “Advising Our Clients Regarding Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration.” Through the Teach-In, the students aimed to help their colleagues understand the implications of the EOs and how to engage with their clients about these sensitive and urgent issues.
At noon on Friday, February 17th, when most WCL students prepare to flee from school in anticipation of the weekend, 40 clinic students assembled in a lecture hall in the Warren Building for the Teach-In. Beginning with a presentation led by the International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC), the group learned about the “Travel Ban” executive order, the subsequent court response, and policies for refugee vetting that existed prior to the EO. Next, the Immigrant Justice Clinic (IJC) taught the room about the “Interior Enforcement” EO, using skits portraying real-life situations in which clinic clients may find themselves to convey important knowledge about how these new policies could threaten the immigration status of our clients.
Following these presentations, the large group broke into smaller sections, rotating between roundtables focusing on various subjects. In one corner of the lecture hall, the IHRLC and IJC led a “Known Your Rights” discussion addressing immigration raids and deportations. On the other side of the classroom, the Women and the Law Clinic (WALC) spoke to groups about their experiences in airport emergency responses, inspiring conversations about how the Clinic and the greater WCL student population could continue to contribute to efforts to protect our client population.
Next door, the Domestic Violence Clinic (DVC) taught about the implications of the EOs on survivors of domestic violence and their families. On the other side of the same room, the Disability Rights Law Clinic (DRLC) taught participants about Powers of Attorney and other planning documents may be useful for clients who could face detention and/or deportation in this uncertain time.
After covering a lot of ground in two and a half hours, students ended the day with a better understanding of their roles as attorneys and how to immediately engage with clients affected by the current administration’s policies. Ultimately, students left the teach-in with the feeling that while there is much work to be done, they had gained knowledge to help them approach that work.
Amanda Frost is a Professor of Law and Acting Director of American University’s Immigrant Justice Clinic. Ann Garcia is a 3L at American University and a Student-Attorney in the clinic. This article is originally featured as a guest post on the University of Oxford Border Criminologies Blog.
Over the past two weeks, President Trump followed through on his promise to upend the United States’ immigration system. On January 25, he issued two executive orders on immigration. His first order ramped up immigration enforcement, changed enforcement priorities, and sought to punish “sanctuary cities”—those localities which have refused to assist federal immigration officials in deporting unauthorized immigrants. Trump’s second executive order calls on federal agencies to build a “physical wall along the southern border,” to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and to build and staff additional detention facilities near the U.S.-Mexico border, among other mandates. Then, on Friday January 27 at 4:43pm, Trump issued an executive order banning entry into the United States of all citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, including lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders, such as students and temporary workers. These executive orders created chaos at United States airports, stranded refugees, separated families, mobilized lawyers, and producedsix separate injunctions from federal judges persuaded that they are likely illegal.
One author of this post, Amanda Frost, is a law professor who is serving this year as Acting Director of American University’s Immigrant Justice Clinic, which provides assistance to indigent and low-income immigrants in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The other author, Ann Garcia, is one of sixteen clinic students who has devoted most of this academic year to representing clients in immigration court. For the past two weeks, the clinic has been forced to respond to nearly daily crises for our clients and our community. We’ve offered our legal services at international airports, taken on a Sudanese client who has been barred from visiting his hospitalized U.S. citizen child, met with our clients to warn them of the new risks, and spent our free time protesting at the White House. It’s hard to believe we are only two weeks into the Trump presidency.
Two days after the election, the clinic students and faculty met to discuss our response to the election. During the campaign for President, Trump had been a fiery radical—proposing a Muslim ban one day, insisting on removing all 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants the next. He declared that once President he would build a “big, beautiful, powerful wall” on the Mexican-U.S. border, and Mexico would pay for it. He was particularly adamant about going after “criminal aliens”—a group that he didn’t define explicitly, but seemed to include longtime lawful permanent residents who had committed minor offenses, and immigrants who had been charged but not convicted of crimes. We knew we had to prepare for the worst.
At our post-election meeting, we decided to counsel those of our clients lacking secure immigration status, advising them not to leave the country and to come up with a “safety plan” if they were arrested. We recommended that they memorize our phone number, as well as the number of a close friend or relative. We told them they needed to execute a power of attorney, arrange for back-up child care, and be sure that someone could access their bank account to pay for rent and other expenses in case they were detained or removed. Many asked us what their chances were avoiding detention and deportation, and we had no easy answers. No one knew what would come next.
We also tried to support the community of immigrants living in the Washington, D.C. area (which includes Northern Virginia and Maryland). We joined forced with an alliance of local immigration organizations and offered know-your-rights presentations to local schools and churches. And we have offered our assistance to immigrant students and staff at American University, which is currently weighing whether to join the dozens of other institutions of higher education in announcing that it will not assist immigration authorities seeking to enter or search the campus for unauthorized immigrants, some of whom may be students or staff.
Looking back, the period that followed was the calm before the storm. As we waited for Trump to take office, we noted that he seemed to be softening his stance towards immigrants. He abandoned the idea of removing all unauthorized immigrants immediately—an impossible task that would cost billions of dollars and create chaos—and instead promised to prioritize removal of “criminal aliens,” not so different from President Obama (who removed 2.8 million unauthorized immigrants during his 8 years in office). Trump even showed sympathy for some unauthorized immigrants , describing them as “terrific people.” Finally, he nominated John Kelly for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a moderate on immigration who acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that “law abiding individuals” were unlikely to be removed due to “limited assets to secure the law.” We began to hope that President Trump would take a less radical stance than his previous statements suggested.
We were wrong. Now that we are two weeks into Trump’s Presidency, we know that he will try to turn the campaign rhetoric into reality. Trump’s January 25 executive order further expands the federal deportation machine, ramps up detention, expands enforcement priorities, and seeks to penalize cities and states that have chosen not to assist federal immigration authorities. (To accomplish these goals he first has to convince Congress to fund them, and his efforts to coerce cities into assisting in immigration enforcement are sure to be challenged on constitutional grounds).
Then on January 27, Trump signed into law a sweeping executive order that is a variation on the Muslim ban he proposed during the campaign. The order bans all refugees from entering the United States for 120 days, and indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from coming to the United States. He also barred all citizens of seven countries –Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya—from entering the United States, even if they are lawful permanent residents who have lived in the country for most of their lives.
Chaos ensued. Customs and Border Patrol officials were forcing visa holders back onto planes and refusing to let lawyers meet with their clients. One officer told a lawyer who complained that if he didn’t like it, he should “call Mr. Trump.” No one else could help him.
The Trump administration was slow to respond to these injunctions. Although it reversed itself and agreed that lawful permanent residents from the seven banned countries could enter the United States despite the executive order, it did not appear to allow nonimmigrants from those countries to enter the United States, and thus airlines were refusing to permit these visa holders onto flights. But then on Friday night the district court in Washington state issued a clear and sweeping injunction halting the implementation of the executive order. The Trump Administration is now complying with that order, but not before requesting an immediate stay of the Washington judge’s decision, which was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night. As we write this, we are about to leave for Dulles airport to welcome our clinic’s Sudanese client back to the United States to visit his family. The legal fight is just beginning, but if nothing else this past week has proven that judges and lawyers can serve as a bulwark against hastily drafted and illegal executive action against immigrants.
For more information on the WCL Immigrant Justice Clinic, visit the webpage!
For seven years, United States biologist Ryan Killackey researched and filmed the 1,500 kilometer Yasuni biosphere reserve in Ecuador, one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. The resulting documentary explores “the impact of oil development on the biodiversity of the forest and its people,” and effectively “tells the story of the conflict in Yasuni that has pitted biodiversity and human rights against extractive industries and human consumption.”
This 90-minute film has already won 3 awards and several official selections so far on the film festival circuit. The Glushko-Samuelson Clinic, along with its student attorneys Aaron Wicker, Aurelie Mathieu, David Najera, and Joanna Scleidorovich, are credited at the end of the film.
Tickets are now on sale for the Yasuni Man DC Premiere at the D.C. Environmental Film Festival on Sunday, March 19th from 7-9pm at the Landmark E Street Cinema.
Prof. Jenny Roberts wrote an amicus brief in Lee v. US on behalf of three of three national organizations that work at the intersection of criminal and immigration law, the Immigrant Defense Project, The Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.Three WCL students worked on the brief: Roberto Martinez ’17 and Christina Moehrle ’17 (both in the Criminal Justice Clinic), and Aaron Garavaglia ’16.
Mr. Lee came to the US more than 20 years ago as a child, and has never returned to his country of origin, South Korea. Although his attorney assured him that his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute ecstasy would not have immigration consequences, that advice was incorrect and Mr. Lee’s conviction made him mandatorily deportable. The Supreme Court will hear argument on March 28th on the issue of whether Mr. Lee’s attorney’s misadvice actually caused him prejudice, a requirement for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The government argues that, because the evidence against Mr. Lee was strong, he cannot show prejudice. The amicus brief discusses how, even when evidence against a non-citizen is strong, competent criminal defense counsel can negotiate with the government to find an alternative plea that does not lead to mandatory deportation, even if it leads to similar or more incarceration than the deportable conviction. The brief offers a number of stories from actual criminal cases where defense counsel successfully bargained to avoid some or all immigration consequences.
For more information on the WCL Criminal Justice Clinic, visit the webpage!
A letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a scary thing for anyone to receive, especially someone who is not familiar with tax law and procedure. Contrary to what one might assume, the IRS audits thousands of low-income individuals each year. Most clients of AUWCL’s Janet R. Spragens Federal Tax Clinic earn less than $30,000 per year, and they face potentially ruinous amounts of tax liability relative to their means.
I enjoy being a student attorney with the Tax Clinic because I have the privilege and opportunity to work face-to-face with clients and represent them before the IRS in appeals conferences and in the U.S. Tax Court. It is enormously rewarding to be able to help someone through this seemingly daunting process and to help him or her understand how our revenue system works. To me, the hands-on experience that the Clinic provides is an essential learning experience for all law students.
While it may not always seem like the most exciting legal field to many law students, tax law is cerebral, pervasive, and provides enormous opportunities for social justice and public interest work. Taxation is not only necessary for any government spending, but the tax code has enormous potential in affecting economic behavior through credits and penalties and is an enormous tool for assisting low and middle income taxpayers through programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and Child Dependent Care Credit.
In addition to representing our clients as student attorneys, every student who participated in the Tax Clinic this year will be volunteering at VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) sites throughout the DC metro area. Each year, volunteers help prepare state and federal taxes for thousands of taxpayers and help put millions of dollars of refunds in their bank accounts without charging enormous prices and fees. Being a VITA volunteer is a tremendously rewarding experience and great way to for law students to familiarize themselves with the tax system.
On November 17th over 50 IP Clinic alums and former faculty returned to campus to hear founding faculty member Professor Peter Jaszi deliver the annual Distinguished Lecture on Intellectual Property. Peter’s lecture was “Cultural practice and copyright justice: Confessions of a semi-reconstructed auteurist”
At the celebratory reception clinic alums, faculty and current students had the chance to mingle and toast the man who started it all!