A pair of prominent law professors is openly calling for an expanded legal assault on federal immigration enforcement, urging activists and lawmakers to flood the courts with lawsuits against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The proposal, published in a national opinion essay, frames immigration enforcement itself as a civil rights problem rather than a lawful federal responsibility. Critics argue the effort is designed to paralyze enforcement through litigation rather than address policy through Congress.
The essay was authored by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, and Burt Neuborne, a longtime professor at NYU School of Law. Both men are well-known figures in progressive legal circles and have previously advocated for expansive interpretations of constitutional rights. In this case, they urge civil rights groups to pursue aggressive lawsuits against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its agents.
According to Legal Insurrection, the professors specifically argue that existing legal safeguards protect ICE agents too strongly. They call for weakening qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields federal officers from personal liability when performing official duties. The authors also suggest new federal legislation that would make it easier to sue immigration agents directly for alleged constitutional violations.
Conservative legal experts warn that the proposal would have sweeping consequences beyond immigration enforcement. Removing liability protections could discourage federal officers from carrying out lawful duties across multiple agencies. Opponents say policy disagreements over border security should be settled through legislation, not by turning courts into tools of ideological activism.
The push comes as progressive groups intensify pressure on immigration enforcement nationwide. Critics view the campaign as another example of elite academic institutions aligning with open-border ideology while dismissing the federal government’s constitutional obligation to enforce immigration law.
