Second Circuit Cites Scholarship in Both Majority and Dissenting Opinions of Farhane v. United States

My coauthored denaturalization scholarship makes appearances on both sides of the aisle

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just issued Farhane v. United States, an important case in which the appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not warn him of the risks of denaturalization and potential subsequent deportation arising from his guilty plea. The Second Circuit affirmed SDNY's denial of the appellant's habeas petition to vacate his guilty plea, conviction, and sentence.

Both Judge Walker's majority opinion and Judge Carney's dissent cite to my denaturalization scholarship with Cassandra Burke Robertson. The two opinions both cite to our article "(Un)Civil Denaturalization" (NYU Law Review), and the dissent additionally cites to our article "Inalienable Citizenship" (North Carolina Law Review).

We are staying tuned as to whether the Supreme Court ends up granting cert.

Comments

[mulched]

Well, congrats! That's pretty cool!

[Dan Schiavetta]

A woman of substance!

[Bubba Jones]

Does that mean the conclusion was unclear, or unconvincing?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The citations are largely for the article's descriptions of how denaturalization works, not about the legal significance of those facts on the question presented in this case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That should make the citations more flattering to the person cited, not less. Explaining the basics of something is hard to do. By reading Ms. Manta, the judges were consulting her as a teacher, not tolerating her as an advocate.

[SomeGuy 2]

Farhane had conspired with two others (one of whom was an FBI
informant) to send money to fighters engaged in jihad in Afghanistan
and Chechnya.

This opinion really shows how preposterously soft on crime we are. Farhane is literally the enemy and to the extent he has any loyalty to the United States of America is a traitor; to the extent he doesn't have any loyalty to the United States of America, he's an enemy combatant operating out of American soil. Either way, the question should be what kind of rope to use at his execution, not whether he should be denaturalized.

[Hendo]

Those judges do not "cite to" your scholarship. They cite your scholarship. Cite, in this sense, is a transitive verb and does not require the preposition.

Bryan Garner, in his Modern English Usage, says that using "cite" incorrectly as an intransitive verb is a "looseness" that is "common especially among lawyers."

[mse326]

The decision is right but horrendously wrong in its reasoning. The notion that denaturalization that will then almost certainly lead to deportation is different than just deportation is absurd. Padilla clearly answers the substantive question. But Chadiz resolves the case, because Padilla is not retroactive.