Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, UNITED STATES
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is an expert on the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law, race, national security, and immigration.
Media
Publications:
Documents:
Videos:
Audio/Podcasts:
Industry Expertise (2)
Research
Education/Learning
Areas of Expertise (5)
National Security
Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law
Law
Immigration
Race
Biography
Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is an expert on immigration law whose research focuses on the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and the intersections of race, national security and immigration. One of the nation’s leading scholars on the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law, Wadhia’s scholarship in this area has served as a foundation for scholars, advocates, and government officials seeking to understand or design a strong prosecutorial discretion policy. Her work has been published by Emory Law Journal; Texas Law Review; Columbia Journal of Race and Law; Notice & Comment, Yale Journal on Regulation; Harvard Latino Law Review; Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal; Georgetown Immigration Law Journal; and Howard Law Journal, among others and also cited to by federal court judges. Her book, Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases, was published by New York University Press and is new in paperback in 2017.
Education (2)
Georgetown University Law Center: J.D.
Indiana University: B.A.
Links (2)
Articles (5)
Is Immigration Law National Security Law
Emory Law journal
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
2016 The debate around how to keep America safe while welcoming newcomers is prominent. In the last year, cities and countries around the world, including Baghdad,'Dhaka, Istanbul, 3 Paris, 4 Beirut, 5 Mali, 6 and inside the United States, 7 have been vulnerable to terrorist attacks and human tragedy. Meanwhile, the world faces the largest refugee crises since the Second World War.
Beyond Deportation: Understanding Immigration Prosecutorial Discretion and United States v. Texas
Immigration and Nationality Law and Review
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
2016 In this article, I place the Supreme Court case of United States v. Texas into a broader context by describing the history and legal authority for prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and highlighting the contents and recommendations in my book, Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases. Part I of this article offers a primer on the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and also describes two related programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014 and the subject of litigation for nearly two years as of this writing. Part II provides a history and analysis of United States v. Texas, a lawsuit originally brought by the state of Texas and twenty-five other states and decided on June 23, 2016. This section offers highlights from the oral arguments held at the U.S. Supreme Court and my position on the winning arguments. Part III raises normative questions about the implementation, legitimacy, and continued enforcement of immigration law against “priorities” identified by the government. Part IV discusses my book Beyond Deportation, which includes a history about discretion, my efforts to obtain data about the individuals who receive discretion and recommendations moving forward.
Demystifying Employment Authorization and Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases
Columbia Journal of Race and Law
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
2016 On November 20, 2014, President Barack Obama announced a series of immigration programs aimed to reform the immigration system. Deferred Action for Parents of Americans or Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) represent two such programs announced by the President. Both programs extend deferred action (one form of prosecutorial discretion) to qualifying individuals. Deferred action has been part of the immigration system for more than 50 years, and has been named explicitly by Congress, federal courts, and the agencies responsible for administering immigration laws. Additionally, regulations list deferred action as one basis for work authorization. The President’s deferred action programs offered room for a healthy debate about immigration law and policy. The debate was intensified by a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas and 25 other states challenging the deferred action programs, and a subsequent judicial opinion enjoining these programs. Much of the tension has centered on the ability for a deferred action grantee to obtain ancillary benefits like employment authorization or lawful presence. This conflict has enabled great distortion about the limits and benefits of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law.
The Aftermath of United States v. Texas
PennState Law E-Library
Shoba S Wadhia
2016 On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling in the immigration case of United States v. Texas, blocking two “deferred action” programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014: extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Plus) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Residents (DAPA). The 4-4 ruling by the justices creates a non-precedential non-decision, upholding an injunction placed by a panel of federal judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the future of these programs remains uncertain in the long term, the immediate effects are pronounced, as millions of qualifying young people (“Dreamers”) and parents who would have been able to request deferred action programs are unable to do so in the foreseeable future. The outcome of the ruling highlights the need for greater information about existing prosecutorial discretion tools, including a longstanding deferred action program on which DACA and DAPA are based.
The Aftermath of United States v. Texas: Rediscovering Deferred Action
Yale Journal on Regulation
Shoba S Wadhia
2016 On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling in the immigration case of United States v. Texas, blocking two “deferred action” programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014: extended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA Plus) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Legal Residents (DAPA). The 4-4 ruling by the justices creates a non-precedential non-decision, upholding an injunction placed by a panel of federal judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the future of these programs remains uncertain in the long term, the immediate effects are pronounced, as millions of qualifying young people (“Dreamers”) and parents who would have been able to request deferred action programs are unable to do so in the foreseeable future. The outcome of the ruling highlights the need for greater information about existing prosecutorial discretion tools, including a longstanding deferred action program on which DACA and DAPA are based.
Social