Minorities, Immigrants and Otherwise

10 Pages Posted: 22 Aug 2008 Last revised: 5 Sep 2008

See all articles by Kevin R. Johnson

Kevin R. Johnson

University of California, Davis - School of Law

Date Written: August 21, 2008

Abstract

Anupam Chander's article Minorities, Shareholders and Otherwise 113 YALE L.J. 119 (2003), brilliantly offers a "conservative" justification for a U.S. constitutional law truly dedicated to fairness and justice for all. It does so through counter-intuitively looking to the bottom-line oriented world of corporate law. As Chander explains, modern constitutional law, which in effect ignores the racially discriminatory outcomes of facially neutral laws, has much to learn from corporate law, which strives to ensure fair outcomes - as well as procedures - for minority shareholders.

This commentary offers a most powerful example of the gulf between constitutional law and corporate law identified by Professor Chander. Modern constitutional law affords no meaningful substantive protection to immigrants to the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the political branches of the U.S. government possess "plenary power" over immigration and the courts lacks the power to review the substantive constitutionality of the immigration laws. The "plenary power" doctrine in operation serves as a bulwark of inequality for immigrants to the United States.

Keywords: immigration

Suggested Citation

Johnson, Kevin R., Minorities, Immigrants and Otherwise (August 21, 2008). Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 148, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1245802

Kevin R. Johnson (Contact Author)

University of California, Davis - School of Law ( email )

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
400 Mrak Hall Drive
Davis, CA 95616-5201
United States
530 752 0243 (Phone)
530 752 7279 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
114
Abstract Views
1,172
Rank
435,891
PlumX Metrics