Neither Soil, Nor Blood, Nor Money

Russian oligarchs in Malta, descendants of Italians in South America, and Mexicans crossing into the US make unlikely characters for a common story. Yet over the first half of 2025, the ability of each of these groups to acquire or transmit citizenship status has been under scrutiny, signalling a shared preoccupation with ensuring that citizenship reflects “authentic” bonds and is not acquired instrumentally. In the struggle to define these “authentic” bonds each intervention strikes at the heart of some well-known citizenship tenet – the link to soil, blood, or money – without offering a clear alternative. The resulting void calls for a reflection on the principles that ought to inform rules on citizenship attribution.

Whose Values?

Value-based reasoning features prominently in CJEU case law, most recently in AG Ćapeta’s opinion in Commission v. Hungary. However, what is treated as absolute within the Union turns flexible and conditional in cases concerning asylum, integration, as well as anti-discrimination. A closer look at the “feminist” cases (WS, K and L, and AH and FN) reveals how “Western values”-centred reasoning is deployed at the Member State level and re-elaborated by the CJEU as the fundamental value of gender equality – opening the door to ideological reinterpretations.

The Nondelegation Case Against Trump’s New Travel Ban

Donald Trump has imposed the second travel ban of his presidential history. Despite the enormous harm it is likely to cause, many assume there is no effective way to challenge it in court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – addressing Trump’s first-term “Muslim ban” – probably precludes challenges based on discriminatory intent. Nonetheless, there is an alternative path to striking down the new travel ban: the nondelegation doctrine. This doctrine sets limits to Congress’s delegation of legislative authority to the executive.

Using Immigration Court as a Trap

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun apprehending noncitizens at immigration court – where individuals appear to seek humanitarian relief or defend against deportation – immediately after the government moves to dismiss their case. Immigrants and their attorneys are increasingly reporting that ICE, in coordination with government lawyers, is detaining individuals as they exit court following such dismissals. Rather than providing a reprieve, dismissal is now being used to facilitate detention and potentially summary deportation, raising serious concerns about due process and adherence to governing statutes in the United States.

Asylwende mit Hindernissen

Um die „Asylwende" zu erreichen, wurde im Kabinett nun beschlossen, dass der Familiennachzug bei Fällen subsidiären Schutzes ausgesetzt werden soll. Auch soll die Bundesregierung künftig per Rechtsverordnung „sichere Herkunftsländer" bestimmen können. Während die Aussetzung des Familiennachzugs von einem de facto und de jure unzutreffenden Verständnis des subsidiären Schutzes ausgeht, drohen bei der Einstufung von „sicheren Herkunftsstaaten“ per Rechtsverordnung Intransparenz und mangelhafte Begründung.

Othering in EU Law

The so-called migrant crisis has been instrumentalized to promote ideas such as “massive invasion” and “the great replacement” – narratives that frame migrants as threats to public security and cultural identity. This rhetoric forms part of a broader phenomenon of othering, in which legal mechanisms are used to exclude and marginalize migrant populations. This text explores how EU migration law actively contributes to this process by reinforcing exclusionary narratives and practices. Drawing on postcolonial scholarship and the concept of borderization, it argues that EU legal frameworks regulate certain groups as undesirable or excessive, echoing colonial patterns of control. These exclusionary dynamics are not merely reflections of societal bias but are structurally embedded in EU law itself.

Zurückweisungen vor Gericht

Das Verwaltungsgericht Berlin hat mit Beschluss vom 2.6.2025 im Eilverfahren entschieden, dass drei Asylsuchenden der Grenzübertritt nach Deutschland zu gestatten ist, um im Anschluss ein Dublin-Verfahren durchzuführen. Der Beschluss bestätigt die herrschende Auffassung in der Wissenschaft: Zurückweisungen an der Grenze sind europarechtswidrig. Auch eine Notlage wurde nicht substanziell begründet. An der jetzigen Praxis festzuhalten ist daher inakzeptabel.

What Are Human Rights For?

The Danish-Italian public letter to the European Court of Human Rights from 22 May 2025 must be understood in the context of two decades of “crises” in the European human rights regime. None of it is new or unprecedented. What makes it truly troubling, however, is the changed geopolitical context and the focus on migrants and asylum seekers as the most vulnerable.