Suchergebnisse

This Comment explores the problems aliens in deportation hearings face in obtaining legal assistance under the current law. Our adversarial system of justice traditionally recognizes the need for participants to have the benefit of professional and knowledgeable legal assistance. Congress has given aliens a statutory right of access to counsel through the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). This right, however, is not being uniformly extended to aliens in deportation hearings. Part of the problem is financial. Although aliens have a right to counsel, the INA does not provide government assistance for aliens unable to pay attorneys. The ultimate result is that an indigent alien has no right to appointed counsel. Circuit courts have responded to this problem by using a case-by-case review. In some cases the courts have determined that lack of counsel can prejudice an alien enough to amount to a denial to the right, and even a denial of constitutional due process. This Comment proposes an alternative uniform approach which would provide a meaningful right to counsel for aliens in deportation hearings and lead to consistency in the circuit courts.

This Comment explores the problems aliens in deportation hearings face in obtaining legal assistance under the current law. Our adversarial system of justice traditionally recognizes the need for participants to have the benefit of professional and knowledgeable legal assistance. Congress has given aliens a statutory right of access to counsel through the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). This right, however, is not being uniformly extended to aliens in deportation hearings. Part of the problem is financial. Although aliens have a right to counsel, the INA does not provide government assistance for aliens unable to pay attorneys. The ultimate result is that an indigent alien has no right to appointed counsel. Circuit courts have responded to this problem by using a case-by-case review. In some cases the courts have determined that lack of counsel can prejudice an alien enough to amount to a denial to the right, and even a denial of constitutional due process. This Comment proposes an alternative uniform approach which would provide a meaningful right to counsel for aliens in deportation hearings and lead to consistency in the circuit courts.

Abstract
This Article challenges one of the most robust commonplaces in the study of Indian Constitutional Law, viz. that Directive Principles of State Policy under Article IV cannot be enforced by the judiciary. Through a careful reading of the Constitution's text and structure, as well as an investigation of relevant precedents within India, the United States, and other common-law jurisdictions, it argues: (1) Article 39A commands 'the State' to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity, in particular through legal services enacted through legislation or other methods; (2) The judiciary is part of the State that Article 39A commands; (3) Courts, then, must use their powers to fulfill Article 39A even if that Article is not judicially enforceable; (4) The judiciary has authority over the maintenance and integrity of the legal system; (5) It also has its own authority to spend money to maintain and improve that system; and (6) it has the authority to allocate funds to pay lawyers and other legal personnel in civil cases if it believes that doing so will strengthen the legal system and fulfill its Article 39A mandate. The Constitution's promise of the right to counsel in civil cases thus lies well within the judicial power to accomplish. The Article suggests areas where the judiciary should use this power, e.g., family law, housing, and the environment. It also raises important questions about the very nature of Directive Principles and the meaning of judicial 'enforcement.'