Menu Close

Washington and Lee Law Review - Volume 75:3


by Maya Ginga

On September 8, 2017, Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe announced an agreement to transfer six patents protecting Restasis to the Tribe.

Allergan and Saint Regis believed that because a suit against the Tribe (either an administrative adjudication or civil litigation) as the patent holder should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to tribal immunity, the drug’s intellectual property would remain somewhat insulated from third party legal attacks.

In the light of the Allergan–Saint Regis deal, this Note argues that the legal framework for sovereign immunity should be the same with respect to state and tribal patent holders. Additionally, this Note argues that because it is unlikely Congress possesses the constitutional authority to abrogate state immunity, that the legislature should unequivocally extend state and tribal sovereign immunity in IPRs. To argue this, this Note explores the policy concerns and justifications of tribal and state immunity within administrative patent review.


by Jason A. Cade

This Article focuses attention on two recent and notable federal court opinions considering challenges to Trump Administration deportation decisions. While finding no statutory bar to the noncitizens’ detention and deportation in these cases, the court in each instance paused to highlight the injustice of the removal decisions. This Article places the opinions in the context of emerging immigration enforcement trends, which reflect a growing indifference to disproportionate treatment as well as enforcement actions founded on retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights. Judicial decisions like the ones considered here serve vital functions in the cause of immigration law reform even as they uphold government enforcement decisions. They help motivate advocates, promote inter-branch dialogue, and provide progress toward judicial innovation. This Article focuses particular attention on this steps-on-the-way function, suggesting how the concerns these courts have expressed may one day soon produce a greater measure of judicial scrutiny of removal decisions on proportionality grounds.


by Ming Hsu Chen

My intended focus is on the widespread response—in cities, churches, campuses, and corporations that together comprise “sanctuary networks”¹—to the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 13768 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States² as an instance of the changing relationship between federal, local, and private organizations in the regulation of immigration. After briefly covering the legal background of the Trump Interior E.O., the focus of the Article shifts to the institutional dynamics arising in communities. These institutional dynamics exemplify the beginnings of a reimagined immigration enforcement policy with a more integrative flavor.