A Constitutional Case for Appointed Counsel in Immigration Proceedings: Revisiting Franco-Gonzalez

Authors

Johan Fatemi

Document Type

Article

Abstract

(Excerpt)

This Article argues that had the Franco-Gonzalez court evaluated the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims by applying the classic Mathews v. Eldridge due process balancing test supplemented by more recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Franco-Gonzalez court would have arrived at an identical conclusion regarding the categorical right to appointed counsel for individuals with mental disabilities. This Article further argues that the legal rationales for the putative successful constitutional claim in Franco-Gonzalez can be used to extend civil Gideon to other classes of vulnerable immigrant groups in removal proceedings, including detained noncitizen women and children like Marisol and Jennifer.