UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State Law professors Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia and Jacob Schuman recently were each cited by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Wadhia is Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar, clinical professor of law, and associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Wadhia and her co-author, Chris Walker of Ohio State University, were cited by Judge Julius N. Richardson in his dissent in an immigration case by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The case "Amaya v. Rosen" involved a national from El Salvador seeking a refugee-related protection known as “withholding of removal.” Wadhia and Walker’s article, “The Case Against Chevron Deference in Immigration Adjudications,” 70 Duke L.J. 1197-1243 (2021), argues that the respect for agency expertise underlying "Chevron" deference applies only weakly in the context of immigration adjudications.
This is not the first time Wadhia’s scholarship has been cited by federal appellate judges. Her work has been cited by Judge Richard Posner, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (citing Wadhia’s article on deferred action, “The Aftermath of 'United States v. Texas': Rediscovering Deferred Action,”), Judge Paul J. Watford, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (citing Wadhia's article on the role of discretion in speed deportation, “The Rise of Speed Deportation and the Role of Discretion”), and Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (citing Wadhia’s book “Beyond Deportation”).
Schuman, one of Penn State Law in University Park’s newest hires, is assistant professor of law, and an affiliate faculty member of both Penn State’s Criminal Justice Research Center and Consortium to Combat Substance Abuse.
Schuman was cited in a dissent by Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The case, "United States v. Ka," involved a criminal defendant charged with violating his supervised release because he admitted to his probation officer that he had sold drugs. The majority held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to revocation proceedings. In dissent, Gregory repeatedly cited Schuman’s article, “Supervised Release Is Not Parole,” 53 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 587 (2020), which argues that defendants facing revocation of supervised release deserve more constitutional due process protections than they currently receive.