Johan Fatemi

Document Type




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.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.