By considering states as collective actors, rather than victims, we can begin to see the untapped power of the states to form a resistance that federal actors (Congress, the courts) have failed to garner. law.ua.edu/wp-content/u...

States could similarly organize and resist federal policies by adopting interlinked legislation offering undocumented individuals greater protections, or could establish regional health care policies when the inevitable happens. 4/

My article focuses on the third, since it is by far the most interesting (at least to me). I chart states efforts to adopt trigger laws that only go into effect when other states adopt the same. This strategy signals sister states horizontally and federal officials vertically. 3/

(1) Through direct and belligerent means, such as the litigation we are witnessing unfold around ICE policies; (2) Through evasion, for example, by avoiding anti-immigrant labor laws by passing state laws in non-preempted areas; and (3) Through persuasion. 2/

It's become pretty terrible here. I allow myself 5 minutes to scroll *quickly* to get a sense of news and then promptly log off before my soul dies.

"I'm no stranger to the grape." My crim law prof.

Super helpful since this is not an area I usually follow. Thank you!

Can you elaborate?

I'd love to hear your thoughts if/when you do!

My thanks to @aratojulian.bsky.social, @justinauriburu.bsky.social and Luíza Leão Soares Pereira for the helpful comments!

For more, see my latest over at EJIL Talk! www.ejiltalk.org/the-ilos-rig... End

I agree that the Convention contains the right to strike through an evolutive interpretation, but disagree w/ a related argument that a legally-binding convention like Convention No. 87 must be interpreted to evolve in line with a non-binding convention, i.e., an ILO principle. 2/