Whose Common Sense?

On September 8, 2025, in the case of Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo, the Supreme Court signaled its support for ICE’s continued use of racial profiling in immigration policing. By staying a lower court’s restraining order, the Court allowed agents once again to stop and arrest people based on how they look, the language they speak, where they live, and the kind of work they do. The closest the Court came to providing reasons for its intervention came in the form of a non-precedential concurrence authored by Justice Kavanaugh. In it, “common sense” is doing the heavy lifting, just as it has in the Court’s immigration policing jurisprudence for decades, at the expense of facts, evidence, and individual rights.

Das dosierte Menschenrecht

Die Bundesregierung plant erneut, die bereits enorm prekäre Gesundheitsversorgung Geflüchteter weiter zu verschärfen. So stellt sie sich weiter in schroffen Gegensatz zur umfassenden Gewährleistung des Rechts auf Gesundheit. Seit dem 8. September prüft nun der UN-Fachausschuss den jüngsten Staatenbericht Deutschlands zur Umsetzung des UN-Sozialpakts. Mehrere NGOs weisen gemeinsam auf eine lange „List of Issues“ systemischer Defizite hin, die zeigen: Deutschland verstößt mit der Vorenthaltung von Gesundheitsleistungen für Geflüchtete gegen seine grund- und menschenrechtlichen Verpflichtungen.

Wenig Freiheit, wenig Schutz

Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems tritt im Sommer 2026 in Kraft. Nun hat sich die Regierung auf einen Gesetzentwurf für ein GEAS-Anpassungsgesetz geeinigt. Weil viele der europäischen Regelungen menschenrechtliche Risiken bergen, ist es besonders wichtig, dass die Umsetzung in deutsches Recht die Menschenrechte von Schutzsuchenden möglichst breit zur Geltung bringt. Doch stattdessen schränkt der Entwurf sogar Menschenrechte mit Regelungen ein, die die GEAS-Reform nicht vorsieht.

Disapplication Unbound

Legal scholars welcomed the Apace ruling by the CJEU as a “total victory” for liberals supporting human rights and the independence of the judiciary. But the ruling has two central faut lines: it fails to acknowledge that Article 37 APD is not unconditional: its direct effect is, at best, dubious. Second, in Member States like Italy, where the judiciary makes extensive use of disapplication in asylum matters, the laissez-faire approach of the CJEU paves the way for legal uncertainty and exposes judges to populist attacks.

Crisis and Legal Scholarship

References to crisis abound. Since the 2008 financial crash and with the popularisation of the term “polycrisis” after the COVID-19 pandemic, the idea that we live in times of crises shapes public opinion, political discourse, and academic debates. A review of posts published on Verfassungsblog between January and July 2025 reveals an average of 15 posts per month mentioning some kind of crisis. Crisis is certainly a catchword, and these are hard to resist. But the pervasiveness of this term can also tell us something about the kind of knowledge produced by legal scholarship.

“We Were Just Cooperating!”

On June 12th 2025, Advocate General (AG) Ćapeta delivered her Opinion in Case WS v Frontex (C-746/23 P), concerning Frontex’ responsibility for violations of fundamental rights in joint return operations (JROs). The AG first exposes serious logical and legal flaws in the General Court’s approach before explaining why Frontex can be held directly accountable for fundamental rights violations when acting in cooperation with Member States; a question that was central to the applicants’ case but one that the General Court failed to address entirely.

Frontex vor dem EuGH

Der EuGH hatte in seinem viel kritisierten Urteil vom 6. September 2023 (T-600/21, WS u.a. v. Frontex) im Fall der rechtswidrigen Rückführung einer sechsköpfigen Familie den Zurechnungszusammenhang und damit die deliktische Haftung der EU-Agentur verneint. Aktuell sind EuGH und EGMR erneut mit einer Vielzahl an Fällen befasst, die operative Rückführungsmaßnahmen betreffen. Die nunmehr in der Revision in der Rechtssache WS u.a. v. Frontex ergangenen Schlussanträge machen deutlich, dass der EuGH wesentlichen Fragen in Bezug auf die Verantwortlichkeit von Frontex ausgewichen ist.

Pullbacks in the Channel

Last week, negotiations for a new UK–France agreement culminated in the announcement of a 'one in, one out' pilot scheme, under which the UK will return small boat arrivals to France while accepting asylum seekers selected from France who can demonstrate family ties in Britain. The agreement signals a sui generis evolution in European migration control. For the first time, rather than pushing asylum seekers back to third countries to avoid legal responsibilities under EU and international law, an EU Member State is directly preventing departures from its own territory. 

The End of an (Unlawful) Era

On June 17th, the Danish Supreme Court delivered an important judgement concerning the principle of non-penalization of refugees, ending decades of unlawful prosecutorial practices. A closer reading points to longstanding deficiencies in informing asylum seekers of their rights during the procedure. Moreover, questions remain regarding the interpretation of Article 31 for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

Judicial Acquiescence to Presidential Immigration

Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmar Ábrego García, and Rumeysa Ozturk are just a few of the people against whom the second Trump Administration has openly engaged in alarming forms of immigration enforcement. There is an underappreciated way in which the Supreme Court has defanged the judiciary’s systemic ability to confront the executive branch’s illegal immigration behavior: It has failed to draw on U.S. administrative law. In doing so, it has diminished a vital structural judicial check on presidential power – one that lower courts, and even a future Supreme Court, may find increasingly difficult to deploy.