Federal Courts – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️ AMANDA FROST @ SLATE: CLARENCE THOMAS IS A SUPREME ETHICAL NIGHTMARE — His Colleagues Should Stop “Giving Him A Pass” On The Rules!

Justice Clarence Thomas has openly flouted the federal law that requires all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to recuse themselves from cases in which they cannot be impartial: He has participated in a case in which his wife, Ginni, undeniably has an interest. For a long time, it has felt like there is nothing to be done about this—conventional wisdom says that short of impeachment, Supreme Court justices are immune from penalties for their misconduct. But that is wrong.

Thomas’ eight colleagues have the tools to protect the court’s integrity: They can publicly censure him, bar him from being the decisive vote in cases in which he should have recused, and take away his power to author majority opinions. Whether they will take action is a different story, which may explain why the court’s reputation is at a historic low.

But Thomas, who has long played fast and loose with recusal laws, has finally gone too far. The issue came to a head last month, when the Supreme Court refused to block the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol from obtaining Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward’s phone records. In January 2021, Ward had orchestrated an alternative slate of electors (which included herself) in an effort to subvert the election of Joe Biden as president. Thomas participated in the court’s decision, casting a dissenting vote, even though his wife was intimately involved in these events.

Chances are you heard nothing about this. That’s because the decision was part of the court’s “shadow docket”—orders issued without hearing or written decision—and so it garnered little public attention.

But it should have, because Thomas’ participation in the case was a flagrant violation of the federal law requiring recusal from cases in which it is “known by the judge” that his spouse “ha[s] an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.” His vote also transgressed that statute’s broader provision requiring disqualification in “any proceeding in which [a judge’s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Ginni Thomas’ connection to the case is not in question. She has actively tried to overturn Biden’s election in Arizona and other states. In December 2020, Ginni Thomas sent letters to 29 Arizona lawmakers urging them to “fight back against fraud” and select a “clean slate of Electors” after Biden won the election. She also sent numerous text messages to President Trump’s chief of staff demanding he overturn the election, and attended the rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6, though she left before the attack on the Capitol. This past September, the Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed and interviewed Ginni Thomas, and she repeated then her unfounded belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Without question, Ginni Thomas has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena of Ward’s phone records. Also, without question, Justice Thomas knew it when he cast his dissenting vote to bar disclosure.

The eight other justices know it, too. Yet so far, they have done nothing about a fellow justice’s blatant violation of a federal law designed to protect the integrity of the court on which they serve. Understandably, the justices are reluctant to police their colleagues. But Justice Thomas’ extraordinary conduct calls for an extraordinary response.

. . . .

****************

Read Amanda’s full article at the link.

Failure of one of America’s (supposedly) “top judges” to comply with basic ethical and legal rules undermines democracy! That’s doubly true when the litigation at issue involves an ex-President who has made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t believe the rules apply to him. That’s the same ex-Pres who recently treasonously claimed that the Constitution should be set aside because he lost the 2020 election by more than 7 million votes and can’t accept that truth!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-22

🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎🌟🏆NDPA SUPERSTAR LAUREN WYATT WINS AWARD!

Lauren Wyatt Award — NY City Bar
Legal Services Award
Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt is an attorney with Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, where she provides direct representation to immigrants before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS, and New York family courts. As the Lead Project Attorney for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH), she coordinates pro se application workshops, Know-Your-Rights presentations, legal screenings, and pro bono case placements for unrepresented immigrants in removal proceedings. She also prepares and supervises the implementation of specialized ICH programming in response to emergencies (such as family separation) and changes in law and policy (such as in domestic violence- and family-based asylum claims) She recruits and trains volunteers to provide free legal information and assistance to low-income immigrants. She also supervises and mentors pro bono volunteer attorneys in representing clients before the Immigration Court.

Prior to joining Catholic Charities, Lauren was a Program Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice administering the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants. Before moving to New York City, Lauren was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Fellow at Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Washington. At Catholic Charities DC, she represented unaccompanied children in immigration and state court proceedings, as well as in affirmative applications before USCIS. She also trained and mentored pro bono attorneys to represent clients in immigration and family court cases.

Lauren is licensed to practice in New York and Maryland, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She earned her J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 2014, and her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010. She has studied in Seville, Spain, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Havana, Cuba. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian.

Refugee Women

SOURCE: I-ARC

*****************************

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

As we can see, eight years out of law school, Lauren has basically “done it all!” When are we going to see Lauren on the Federal Bench?

Like Vice President Kamala Harris, Lauren is a distinguished grad of Howard Law! So, why hasn’t Harris actively recruited her for a judicial or senior management position at EOIR, where due process, racial justice, practical problem solving, and a positive attitude toward human rights are in total tatters and need “big time” change and redirection?

Why are Dems blowing the opportunity to recognize, promote, and empower “the best and the brightest” that the “upcoming generation” of American lawyers has to offer?

Why is EOIR still a “due process wasteland” rather than a model, due process focused, best practices oriented, “progressive judiciary of the future?”

Somebody with some “pipelines” into the Biden Administration should be asking these questions and insisting on positive progressive actions!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-22

⚖️🗽👍🏼⚔️NDPA NEWS: LAW YOU CAN USE: “Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings” — By Adam Garnick @ Penn Law

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3623142

Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming

62 Pages Posted:

Adam Garnick

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: May 15, 2020

Abstract

Congress has long sought to limit immigrants’ access to federal district court. This was most evident in the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), which channeled any judicial review of a final order of removal away from federal district courts and into courts of appeals through a petition for review (PFR). But IIRAIRA channeled more than just review of final orders into courts of appeals. With the addition of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), all claims “arising from” the immigration process would likewise be consolidated into a PFR in the court of appeals. Seemingly a wide range of claims—including many urgent challenges to potentially unconstitutional government action—would be swallowed by § 1252(b)(9) and thus precluded from immediate review in federal district court. However, when the Supreme Court first construed the provision, it did so narrowly. Indeed, in circuits that adopted the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the provision, immigrants were able to evade the strictures of § 1252(b)(9) and bring immigration-related claims directly to federal district court. But not all lower courts adhered to the Court’s reading of the provision. The First Circuit—and eventually the Ninth Circuit—adopted a far broader view of § 1252(b)(9), describing it as “breathtaking in scope” and finding it to channel an extensive set of claims. Against this backdrop, the Court, nearly two decades after its first in-depth discussion of the provision, revisited § 1252(b)(9). Though the result was a fractured opinion that explicitly failed to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the provision, the decision offered several important clues on the proper scope of § 1252(b)(9). First, it undercut the expansive interpretation of the provision offered by the First Circuit and adopted by the Ninth Circuit. Second, and relatedly, it altered several of the considerations lowers courts use when determining whether § 1252(b)(9) swallows an immigrant’s claims, which has led to a substantive narrowing of the provision’s scope. As such, the lower courts that previously adopted the broad view of § 1252(b)(9) should revisit and narrow the scope of the provision in accordance with Court precedent. This will ensure that immigrants who bring urgent claims challenging government action with potentially grave consequences are not categorically barred from immediate access to federal district court.

Keywords: 1252(b)(9), Jennings, jurisdiction, immigration, INA, district court

Suggested Citation:

Garnick, Adam, Immigrants’ Access to Federal District Court: The Narrowing of § 1252(b)(9) Post-Jennings (May 15, 2020). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

Download This Paper

Open PDF in Browser

*********************

You can download Adam’s complete article from SSRN, with much helpful research and many helpful strategic suggestions, at the link in the above abstract.

Thanks for being such an important part of the “New Due Process Army” (NDPA), Adam!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-20

ROLLING STONE: HOW STEPHEN MILLER & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST CABAL TOOK OVER OUR GOVERNMENT’S IMMIGRATION APPARATUS: “We used [CIS material] to spin a narrative where immigrants of color were not only dangerous, violent individuals but also posed an existential threat to America,” McHugh told Hatewatch. “We never fact-checked anything. We never called up other organizations to get any other perspective about those studies…. It was understood. You just write it up.”

https://apple.news/Ai9__HexTRd-ZH51tL17Maw

Andy Kroll reports for Rolling Stone:

New Emails Expose How Stephen Miller and His Pals Push Trump’s Agenda

For nearly three years, Stephen Miller has used his White House seat to orchestrate the most extreme anti-immigrant agenda in almost a century. But he hasn’t done it alone.

A loose network of lawyers and advisers embedded throughout the Trump administration has worked closely with Miller to carry out the daily effort of pushing through draconian and often inhumane policies like separating migrant families at the border, detaining young migrants in cagelike facilities, and drastically reducing the number of immigrants allowed entry into the country. In other words, Miller, with his white-nationalist mindset and fervor to enact xenophobic policies, is far from an isolated actor. He’s the leader of a broad operation spread across the federal government.

Newly released emails provided to Rolling Stone offer a glimpse of the working relationship between Miller and one of his internal allies and fellow ideologues: a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement named Jon Feere. Feere has been a fixture in Miller’s immigration working group where new ideas for cracking down on immigration get conceived. Reading the emails, Feere comes across like Miller’s point man inside ICE, enjoying unfettered access to arguably the most influential aide in the Trump White House, working long hours to advance the administration’s extreme and often inhumane immigration policy.

In the emails, Feere strategizes with Miller about how to use the federal government to amplify their anti-immigration message; tees up potential attacks on prominent Democratic politicians; directly briefs Miller in great detail about upcoming enforcement actions and policy changes in the works; and recommends to Miller people the administration should hire to expedite its immigration agenda. The emails also show that on at least one occasion Feere bypassed his superiors at ICE to deliver updates and advice directly to Miller.

Related

Trump Caves to Kim Jong-un (Again)

Democrats Charge Trump with Abuse of Power and Defying Congress in Two Articles of Impeachment

“Stephen Miller didn’t cut ties with the extremists when he joined the government — he brought them with him,” says Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, a government watchdog group run by former members of the Obama administration. American Oversight first obtained Feere’s emails through a Freedom of Information Act request and provided them to Rolling Stone.

ICE and the White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Before he joined the administration, Feere’s bio says he worked for more than a decade at the rabidly anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, which has played an instrumental role in shaping the administration’s immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled CIS an active hate group. (In January, CIS filed a civil racketeering suit against SPLC’s leaders, but a district judge dismissed the suit.) As a policy analyst there, Feere took hardline positions critical of birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and of President Obama’s policies like DACA. He accused Obama of opening the border “to more STDs,” and gave testimony to Congress about restricting birthright citizenship. He wrote favorably of Arizona’s infamous “Show Us Your Papers” law and condemned the DREAM Act, cities that adopt sanctuary status, and Obama’s DACA policy. In 2015, he penned an op-ed titled “How Trump Could Change Birthright Citizenship.”

Feere’s outspokenness didn’t go unnoticed: He advised the 2016 Trump campaign on immigration for several months before taking a job inside the administration. On the morning of Trump’s inauguration, he hit send on a tweet: “It’s time to make immigration policy great again.”

The partnership between Feere and Miller was a natural one. Miller is a big fan of the Center for Immigration Studies. During a keynote address at a CIS event in 2015, he applauded the group for spurring “a debate that far too often operates, like illegal immigrants, in the shadows.” A recent investigation by SPLC’s Hatewatch revealed that Miller shaped Breitbart News’ immigration coverage leading up to the 2016 election by sending at least 46 emails that mentioned CIS research, employees, or contributors to a Breitbart editor named Katie McHugh. Miller sent McHugh the phone number of CIS’s research director and pushed McHugh to use CIS research in her stories, which she often did. (Breitbart fired McHugh in 2017. She says he has since disavowed right-wing extremist politics.)

“We used [CIS material] to spin a narrative where immigrants of color were not only dangerous, violent individuals but also posed an existential threat to America,” McHugh told Hatewatch. “We never fact-checked anything. We never called up other organizations to get any other perspective about those studies…. It was understood. You just write it up.”

After Trump’s victory, Miller brought fellow immigration hardliners with him into the new administration. In addition to Feere, there was Julia Hahn, a Breitbart writer who took a job in the White House, and Julie Kirchner, a former staffer at another prominent anti-immigration group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), who became an adviser to the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and later the top ombudsman at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Because Feere, Hahn, and Kirchner took advisory roles, that meant they didn’t have to be confirmed by the Senate, where they probably would’ve faced harsh questioning for their extreme views.

An active Twitter user before he went into government, Feere’s account went dark after his Inauguration Day tweet. That’s why the emails between Feere, Miller, and other Trump administration officials are useful — they give a rare glimpse at how key figures in the administration have worked behind the scenes to enact the largest crackdown on immigration in this country since the 1920s and ’30s.

“We’ve had quite draconian politics in the past,” says Daniel Tichenor, a professor at the University of Oregon. “But I don’t think we have ever had a modern presidential administration that looked back so longingly to the 1920s and ’30s as the good old days.”

The Feere-Miller emails released to American Oversight run to nearly 500 pages and are heavily redacted. But they’re still one of the few opportunities to see the administration and some of its most hardline members in action on the policy that Trump will be most remembered for: immigration.

One of the most striking emails is a December 22th, 2017, message that Feere sent to Miller and three other administration staffers. It’s a 10-point bulleted memo in which he updates Miller on a slew of different actions underway that he and his colleagues had worked on in the preceding week. The memo is notable because it appears to show how much latitude Feere has at ICE to not only brief the White House but drive forward the administration’s immigration agenda.

Feere says he led a meeting about crafting a new agreement between ICE and the Department of Labor on worksite immigration enforcement actions that would be “more favorable to ICE’s mission” of tracking down and deporting undocumented residents. He describes helping plan an upcoming ICE raid in the Bay Area, and tasking a field office to investigate a New York-based Pakistani American accused of supporting ISIS with bitcoin. He says he stopped an administration response to Amnesty International report on immigration enforcement; located ICE officers and operations “worth highlighting in speeches” for White House speechwriters; and assisted a Fox News contributor and “friendly NGO” on messaging after a draft proposal about separating migrant families had leaked to the media.

What’s notable as well about Feere’s December 22nd memo to Miller is that, according to emails, Feere apparently sent the message straight to Miller and other White House officials without clearing it by his bosses at ICE, who learned about the memo after the fact. “Here is Jon providing a weekly report to [redacted] that neither you or I saw before he sent it,” reads a follow-up email sent to ICE Acting Director Tom Homan by what appears to be Homan’s chief of staff, Tom Blank. (The redacted name is likely Miller’s. Homan declined to comment for the story.)

John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director under Obama and reviewed the emails between Feere and Miller, says it’s not uncommon for an agency official like Feere to aggressively try to get credit for accomplishments and make the White House aware of what he’s doing. But Sandweg adds that it’s “a little strange” to see an adviser like Feere delivering updates and advice directly to the White House, as Feere did.

“You might have someone like [Feere] coordinating it, doing the grunt work, preparing it,” Sandweg says. “But going directly from him to the White House — that’s unusual. If you’re reporting that kind of detail to the White House, the director wants to sign off on that.”

In another email, sent on February 26th, 2018, Feere appears to forward the name and résumé of a Treasury Department employee for an opening at the Social Security Administration. In a follow-up email, Feere writes: “If we can get [name redacted] into SSA, it would help with information-sharing issues.” Greater access to Social Security information, immigration experts say, could assist ICE in its efforts to track down and deport undocumented residents in the U.S. Feere recommends to Miller that the applicant get a title of “Senior Advisor or similar [which] will ensure he has some clout over there.”

Other emails, while heavily redacted, show Feere’s efforts to build the case against DACA, which defers deportation for undocumented residents brought to the U.S. as children and allows them to receive temporary work permits. He writes in one memo: “DACA recipients include murderers, child molesters, individuals involved in fraud schemes, gang members, and many other types of criminals.” In another email, he writes to Miller on November 30th, 2017, to say that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom were “silent” on the acquittal of an undocumented resident who was alleged to have shot and murdered 32-year-old Kate Steinle in July 2015, teeing up a potential attack on two nationally known Democrats.

And still other messages show a close working relationship and rapport between Feere and Miller. In one message, Feere asks Miller for a public defense of ICE’s then-acting director, Tom Homan, after Breitbart had published a series of stories that were critical of Homan, who had previously worked in the Obama administration. In another email Miller sends Feere his cellphone number and tells him to call over the weekend. In another, Feere gives Miller a list of “ideas for swift action,” at 7:30 p.m. (The substance of that email is redacted.) And in yet another message, with the subject line “Appropriations,” Miller thanks Feere for his work and tells him to “keep pushing.”

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a Penn State law professor and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, says that Feere’s and CIS’s role in carrying out the administration’s immigration policy marks an ascent to power for one of the most extreme voices — a rise that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. “They used to be called the loud minority,” Wadhia says. “The fact they’re now helping make immigration policy should be concerning to everyone.”

************************************************************

Remember: When Article III Federal Judges use concepts like “jurisdiction,” “deference,” “textualism,” “delegation,” “plenary power,” “discretion,” and “national security” to uphold the Trump/Miller assault on migrants, the rule of law, and our Constitution, what they are really doing is knowingly advancing the White Nationalist agenda while disguising their actions or inactions with often opaque legalisms. How can you rewrite the laws without Congress and in clear disregard of the Constitution, Due Process, Equal Protection, and prohibitions on racial and religious discrimination? Easy, when when the judges who are supposed to stand up for the law against tyranny instead look the other way.

How do you think that Jim Crow survived for at least a century with nary a peep from the Article IIIs about its obvious racist unconstitutionality? That’s the same type of corrupt judicial complicity that Trump, Miller, Barr, and the rest of the White Nationalist gang are counting on here. And, recently, they have been “right on.”

It’s also why despite all the recent revelations and calls by Democrats and opinion writers for his removal, Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist agenda aren’t going anywhere. Much as most Democrats and most pundits don’t want to admit it, Miller now represents the “real” GOP. The idea that GOP politicos will some morning wake up and find themselves appalled by illegality, racism, misogyny, and pandering to the hate agenda, and rediscover human decency, is a dangerous myth.

Note that no matter how outrageously racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, misogynist, or otherwise hateful and demeaning Trump’s or Miller’s utterances might be, they draw no real condemnation from the GOP. At most, a smattering from the GOP might mutter something like “not useful” or “I wish he had chosen different words.”

And these days, most Federal Appeals Courts find ways to “go along to get along” without acknowledging what’s really going on here. I guess too many Federal Appellate Judges are incapable of seeing themselves and their families as being on the same level of humanity as Trump’s and Miller’s current targets. So, dehumanization and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” is OK by them. That’s both a shame and a national disgrace.

PWS

12-11-19

TRAC DOCUMENTS “MALICIOUIS INCOMPETENCE” IN EOIR‘S STATISTICS: “Of greatest concern is the lack of commitment from EOIR to ensuring the public is provided with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.”

Incomplete and Garbled Immigration Court Data Suggest Lack of Commitment to Accuracy

TRAC recently discovered gross irregularities in recent data releases from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency that oversees the US immigration court system. After attempting – unsuccessfully – to work with the EOIR to fix these problems, TRAC decided to make public our observations of the quality of the agency’s public data releases as well as express our concerns about the lack of commitment within the agency to responsible data management.

Policymakers and the public routinely put their faith in federal agencies to provide complete and accurate information about their work. The value of government transparency is even higher in the area of immigration law and the Immigration Courts, which have become topics of considerable concern for Americans from all walks of life and for all three branches of government. In the present context, TRAC views concerns about EOIR’s data inconsistencies – outlined below – as substantive, ongoing, and in need of prompt attention. Of greatest concern is the lack of commitment from EOIR to ensuring the public is provided with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.

“Significant Errors” in Past EOIR Data

This is not the first time the public has identified significant inaccuracies in EOIR’s reported data. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States relied upon figures provided by the EOIR as the basis for a major ruling affecting ICE detention practices. After the Supreme Court decided the case, the public discovered that the figures provided by the EOIR were fundamentally wrong. The EOIR did not uncover the data irregularities on its own. The EOIR’s mistakes were only recognized because the public obtained the underlying data through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and identified the relevant discrepancies.

After the public alerted the government to its inaccuracies, in 2016 the U.S. Solicitor General was compelled to issue a formal letter to the Supreme Court apologizing for providing inaccurate data. The following excerpt of the Solicitor General’s letter on August 26, 2016 attests to this error:

“This letter is submitted in order to correct and clarify statements the government made in its submissions. … EOIR made several significant errors in calculating those figures. … This Court’s opinion cites figures that ‘EOIR ha[d] calculated,’ …, and those are, in fact, the figures EOIR had calculated, albeit incorrectly. … The Court therefore may wish to amend its opinion…” (emphasis added)

This example illustrates the very real danger posed by the EOIR’s mishandling of data, as well as the value to society – and the government itself – of ongoing oversight through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Despite the EOIR’s past data mistakes, however, the quality of the agency’s data releases has recently declined to unacceptable levels, as we discuss in the following section.

Recent Data Trouble at the EOIR

As a result of TRAC’s ongoing FOIA requests, the Executive Office for Immigration Review releases a large batch of anonymized data about Immigration Court cases every month. Statistics on the operation of the Immigration Courts largely rely on information kept in a massive database maintained by the EOIR. The EOIR records information on each matter filed with the court and tracks subsequent events as the Court processes each case. This data is central to the Court’s ability to efficiently and effectively manage its workload.

Although this data is highly valuable to policymakers and the public, the EOIR’s mishandling of the data undermines its accuracy and public value. These data problems have been occurring with increasing regularity. Severe irregularities with the September 2019 data release set a new low.

On October 9, 2019, the EOIR responded to TRAC’s FOIA request for updated case-by-case data through September 2019. TRAC promptly began processing the data in order to update TRAC’s online tools and reports, and discovered serious inconsistencies that made the data unusable. TRAC alerted the EOIR to the problems we uncovered. The chronology below summarizes the cycle of data mishandling for the September data release, and TRAC’s attempts to work with the EOIR to obtain complete and corrected data.

Data Release, Batch 1. The initial release of the EOIR’s September data included 11 separate files of records on Immigration Court proceedings that were incorrectly formatted. The garbled data resulted in substantial confusion over the relationship between certain variables and values, with some values appearing to apply to the wrong variables in the file. If potential users were even able to read the garbled data, one could reach entirely erroneous conclusions about court events. As soon as TRAC discovered these issues, it alerted the EOIR directly. EOIR promised to look into the matter.

Data Release, Batch 2. In response to TRAC’s notification, the EOIR replaced the first release with a second release and informed TRAC that the problems had been fixed. However, when TRAC processed the second release, it found that while the first set of problems had been fixed, an entirely new set of problems had occurred. In Batch 2, thousands of records of court proceedings and 2.8 million records on scheduled hearings – hearings and proceedings which were included in the first release – had entirely disappeared. TRAC alerted the EOIR directly to the new set of data inconsistencies. EOIR promised once again to look into the matter.

Data Release, Batch 3. The EOIR informed TRAC that it had fixed these new problems, and that TRAC could trust Batch 3 of the EOIR’s data release. Note that EOIR doesn’t change the labels it uses for each release; the file name remains the same and hence on its face indistinguishable from any previous release. After processing millions of records contained in the series of separate tables that made up the new release, TRAC found that problems in batch three were identical to problems in batch two. We again notified EOIR that the problems remained. At first EOIR insisted that TRAC was wrong and that the problems had been fixed. It later emerged that while the General Counsel’s office of EOIR (TRAC’s point of contact) believed a third and corrected release was being supplied, the files had not been changed but were actually the same files that TRAC had received in Batch 2.

Data Release, Batch 3 (cont.) TRAC was finally provided access to what was again billed as the corrected September release. TRAC again processed these files. This time, based on total record counts it appeared that the missing 2.8 million records on scheduled hearings had reappeared. However, some court proceedings that had been contained in Batch 1 were still missing. And there were still other puzzling omissions which we describe in more detail below.

After this series of mistakes, TRAC urged the agency to implement basic quality control procedures to ensure that the EOIR’s data releases to the public were not inadvertently garbled or incomplete. Moreover, TRAC expressed concern about the EOIR’s underlying data management practices which posed a risk to both the public and the government if left unaddressed. We conveyed these concerns to EOIR noting specifically:

“There are standard procedures that anyone in charge of maintaining databases use. The pattern of repeatedly releasing files which are either unreadable or incomplete demonstrates the agency’s standard operating procedures are woefully inadequate.

This really needs to be taken seriously. Without answers to our questions that get to the bottom of what occurred, identifying what went wrong, and implementing a plan to catch mistakes before the agency publicly distributes bad data, means that history will keep repeating itself.”

On Friday, October 25, 2019, while admitting mistakes had been made, the EOIR dug in its heels. The agency responded to TRAC’s entreaties by sidestepping the underlying issue and avoiding responsibility for its routine inaccuracies:

“[T]he FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does not require the Agency to create records in response to your specific questions, nor to certify the accuracy of data contained in responsive documents.”

TRAC was forced to take note of the EOIR’s unwillingness to fully correct their mistakes and to work with the public to resolve the declining quality in their data releases.

The Case of the EOIR’s Disappearing Data

After recognizing the seeming inability of EOIR to produce a correct and complete data release for September 2019, TRAC began digging deeper into the problem.

Our concern about EOIR’s data was already heightened. We recently discovered that some months ago the EOIR had begun silently deleting swaths of records in their entirety from the data releases that we and other members of the public received. EOIR belatedly told us that withholding of entire records was necessary to protect immigrants’ privacy. This rationale was perplexing since these records were already anonymized and all identifying details deleted. Regardless of the EOIR’s justification for withholding the records, the agency had started making these deletions without alerting us that it was doing so, and failed to mark the data in any way to indicate the magnitude of the deletions or indicate in which files the deletions occurred.

TRAC is in a fairly unique position to examine this problem. For many years, TRAC has been regularly requesting snapshots of anonymized data from EOIR’s database as part of our mission to provide the public (and often other government agencies themselves) with access to reliable, accurate data about the Immigration Courts. Because we receive and retain these monthly snapshots, we are able to monitor changes in these releases over time and assess whether releases are incomplete or inaccurate in some other way.

Therefore, TRAC undertook a careful comparison by matching the records received in the September 2019 release against the EOIR’s release for the previous month, August 2019, and with the release we received a year ago for September 2018. This time we matched records based on unique identification numbers rather than simply comparing total record counts. This allowed us to identify records which the EOIR released in the past but were missing entirely from the current shipment.

The results of this comparison were sobering. Compared to the August 2019 release, the (allegedly-accurate) final September 2019 release was inexplicably missing more than 1,500 applications for relief that were present the previous month. We further found that 896,906 applications for relief which were present in the September 2018 release from a year ago were missing from the September 2019 files we received. This discrepancy of nearly a million records largely occurred because the EOIR appears to have started silently but systematically deleting records.

Compared to the data from August 2019, the EOIR’s files for September were also missing records on over 600 charges DHS had filed. Also missing were over 700 case and/or court proceeding records, and over 900 records on scheduled hearings. An additional 1,200 records flagging various specific types of cases were also missing. For context, this flagging system is used to identify juveniles, recently arrived families seeking asylum, and immigrants required to remain in Mexico under the Migration Protection Protocols, and other special cases.

When the records in the September 2019 release TRAC received were matched with those from the September 2018 release a year earlier, the problems we uncovered multiplied. It was clear that the problem of missing records grew by leaps and bounds with the passage of time.

EOIR Data Management: Problems and Solutions

Based on the investigation above, TRAC identified key gaps in the EOIR’s data verification procedures that lead to unreliable and inaccurate data releases.

Unintentional data removal. The EOIR’s data is inconsistent because the agency apparently does not perform a simple yet essential data verification step: it does not compare the number of records in its source database and the number of records in its released files to ensure that no records have been lost along the way. This is not merely a best practice. It is an industry standard for agencies managing large databases, and it is a routine practice in many of the EOIR’s peer agencies that provide large data releases to TRAC.

Intentional data removal. The EOIR also does not appear to be keeping track of intentionally deleted records. If the EOIR is screening out records for specific reasons, then the number withheld for each reason in a file should be counted and these counts provided. The number withheld plus the number released should match the total number of records read in to ensure reliability.

Garbled data releases. The EOIR is paying insufficient attention to how data releases are produced and formatted. Columns and rows in each table need to properly line up; otherwise information becomes garbled. And since EOIR’s database consists of many closely interconnected tables, copying data in individual tables at widely separated points in time inherently means the information will be out of sync.

Possible data deletion in master database. Deletions of the EOIR’s original source records need to be carefully tracked and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized deletions from occurring. If applied systematically, such a verification process would also pinpoint whether there were deletions made in EOIR’s original source records. Any suspicious deletions need to be investigated to ensure the integrity and completeness of this master database is maintained.

If the EOIR does not implement basic data verification procedures, the public cannot tell if records were intentionally withheld and why they were withheld, or if records were accidentally omitted during the data copying process. The failure to address these problems also means that the public has no way to test for potential problem areas in EOIR’s underlying master data files.

Accuracy, Reliability, Cooperation

Under any circumstance, maintaining a massive database of this nature is challenging. Clearly it requires the resources necessary for day-to-day operations. More fundamentally, however, it requires a commitment on behalf of the agency to provide the public with complete, accurate, and reliable data about the agency’s operations. When TRAC uncovered unexplained data issues in the past, we have brought them to the attention of the EOIR and generally found the agency to be fairly responsive and committed to ensuring accurate reporting. The recent change in posture is therefore concerning. Moreover, because EOIR’s data are relied upon as part of the official record of court filings and proceedings that have taken place, one should not expect official records to simply go missing without explanation.

It is deeply troubling that rather than working cooperatively with TRAC to clear up the reasons for these unexplained disappearances, the agency has decided to dig in its heels and insist the public is not entitled to have answers to why records are missing from the data EOIR releases to the public. TRAC urges the EOIR to take the basic steps necessary for managing any large database, especially a database of as inestimable value and relevance as the one EOIR maintains for the Immigration Courts.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

Report date: October 31, 2019

*******************************************************

Without accurate data, there can be no effective oversight, by Congress, the Judiciary, or the public (which contrary to their nasty attitude, is whom EOIR actually serves). TRAC’s experience with “malicious incompetence” is typical of the Trump Administration’s “stonewalling” and disregard of honesty and public service. They are too busy denying Due Process and evading the law to bother with facts.

Quality is simply not a factor, or even an objective, at the “New EOIR!” Unfortunately, that’s true not only in record keeping, but also in making life or death adjudications.

The only thing that makes any difference in this Administration is a preconceived White Nationalist agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with facts or public service and everything to do with racism, xenophobia, and political pandering. Obviously, because facts and data don’t support, and typically directly refute, this Administration’s draconian anti-immigrant initiatives, they have no interest in the truth or accuracy. Indeed, as in most things, facts and truth are quite damaging to the Trump Administration’s programs.

There is absolutely no excuse for EOIR’s continued existence. Much of the information that EOIR feeds to the Judiciary, through DOJ attorneys, is misleading, inaccurate, or perhaps even fabricated. By not putting a stop to EOIR’s nonsense and non-responsiveness, both Congress and the Article III Courts are demeaning themselves and shirking their Constitutional responsibilities.

PWS

11-01-19

US DISTRICT JUDGE BRINKEMA CRITICIZES INCREASE IN LOW-LEVEL IMMIGRATION PROSECUTIONS: “I think this is not the best use of judicial or Justice Department resources to keep seeing these types of cases.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-criticizes-prosecutors-over-increase-in-illegal-immigration-cases/2019/01/10/98d4692e-103c-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html

Rachel Weiner and John D. Harden report for WashPost:

Federal judge criticizes prosecutors over increase in immigration cases

By Rachel Weiner and

John D. Harden

January 10 at 12:47 PM

A federal judge has spoken out against a sharp increase in Northern Virginia in the prosecution of immigrants who reenter the country after deportation.

“I hope this is not the start of a pattern for this year,” Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said in Alexandria federal court last week, noting that there were six such cases scheduled for the first Friday in January. “I think this is not the best use of judicial or Justice Department resources to keep seeing these types of cases.”

She added that she would like that message to be relayed to U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger.

The defendant before her that morning, Ramon Adrian Ochoa Paz, ended up in federal court after serving time in Prince William County for aggravated sexual battery of a child, a felony. But in federal court, his only alleged crime was coming back into the country after being deported in 2000. And he is something of an outlier; in the majority of the 224 felony reentry after deportation cases filed in the Eastern District last year, the initial arrest involved misdemeanor offenses, most commonly drunken driving. Arrests for misdemeanor assault and public intoxication are also common.

Former attorney general Jeff Sessions made immigration cases a national priority, and the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria is one of many that responded to the call. U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted in his 2018 reviewthat there was a 40 percent increase nationally in defendants charged with illegal reentry last year. After drug crimes, immigration offenses are the most common federal charge, and most are illegal re-entries.

The vast majority of these cases are prosecuted at the border, where immigrants are caught crossing illegally. The Eastern District of Virginia ranked sixth among non-border districts in illegal reentry prosecutions last fiscal year.

The federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Eastern District of Virginia, a large and high-profile office led by a prosecutor who worked under Sessions, has seen a particularly sharp rise in such cases, from 78 filed in 2017 to nearly three times that number the following year.

The numbers were as high or higher under President Barack Obama through the end of 2014, when the White House took unilateral action to change national deportation priorities. After that move they dropped sharply in Alexandria, along with several other districts across the country.

Terwilliger declined to comment, but in recent months he has begun highlighting cases in which defendants have repeatedly come into the country illegally and committed other crimes while here. They included a Salvadoran man arrested for his fifth drunken driving offense who already had a felony reentry conviction and a Mexican man with a sexual assault and drug record who had previously been deported.

“We are committed to criminal immigration enforcement and will continue to prioritize these cases,” the U.S. attorney wrote in one such news release.

Terwilliger has simultaneously emphasized his support for legal immigration, regularly taking part in the Alexandria courthouse’s monthly naturalization ceremonies. In his first-ever tweet, he wrote, “These individuals exemplify that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.”

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger. (Department of Justice)

Most illegal immigrants convicted of coming back into the country after deportation do not have previous felony or extensive misdemeanor records and are usually not sentenced to any incarceration beyond time already served awaiting judgment before they are handed over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to federal court records. The average sentence in fiscal 2018 for those who did get prison time was five months, according to data from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse — on the low end nationally and a decline from previous years.

In many cases the initial charges are dropped or left hanging because the defendant is already in ICE custody. When the initial crime is more serious, a defendant is more likely to be prosecuted on federal charges after completing a local sentence.

Although the Salvadoran gang MS-13 is a serious problem in Northern Virginia and many of the illegal immigrants are from that country, only four of the 224 defendants prosecuted last year on a reentry charge have been alleged in public court filings to have ties to the gang.

Only a few of those prosecuted were not arrested for any reason other than returning to the country after deportation — for example, a contractor hired to work on a house where FBI agents were serving a search warrant.

Often, defense attorneys in these cases ask to skip as much of the standard court process as possible, hoping to move a case quickly to sentencing. Illegal immigrants rarely have the funds to hire attorneys; most of these cases are handled by taxpayer-funded public defenders.

“The court, prosecutors, and defense lawyers spend considerable time and resources, particularly to hire interpreters, on illegal reentry cases. Yet these defendants almost all face, in addition to prosecution, detention in ICE custody and deportation,” Geremy Kamens, lead public defender for the Eastern District said in a statement. “Particularly for defendants who have little or no criminal record, ICE detention and removal already amount to a significant punishment.”

Brinkema has challenged the Trump administration’s immigration policies before. She issued a preliminary injunction against the White House’s travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries in 2017, saying there was “unrebutted evidence” that the order was motivated by “religious prejudice.”

But in immigration cases involving a pattern of bad conduct, she has not shied away from imposing relatively long sentences.

Giving one man with a history of domestic violence and drunken driving a 14-month sentence for recrossing the border illegally, she told him, “You’re a menace when you’re in this country.”

************************************

Under Trump, Sessions, and now Whitaker, the DOJ is no stranger to promoting prosecutorial abuses. Just think of the unconscionable clogging of US District Courts along the border with minor offenders as part of Sessions’s ill-fated “zero tolerance” policy; the Government’s frivolous anti-sanctuary litigation which they have lost everywhere; the abusive “re-calendaring” of previously properly closed “low priority” removal cases on already overwhelmed Immigration Court dockets; and the illegal and unethical use of “AG certification” to rewrite portions of immigration law that weren’t broken in the first place.

On the flip side, the individual actually involved in this particular case sounds (from the facts presented here) like a “bad actor” who would be an enforcement priority in any Administration. I also appreciate U.S. Attorney’s Terwilliger’s public support of naturalization and legal immigration, something which puts him at odds with some other Administration officials and Trump himself who keeps parroting the nativist “we need cuts to legal immigration” party line.

At least Judge Brinkema gets to speak her mind. By contrast,”captive” U.S. Immigration Judges controlled by the DOJ are “muzzled” when it comes to commenting on the politicized mess that this Administration is causing in the Immigration Courts through “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” political meddling with the law by biased Attorneys General, and a total lack of discipline or discernible priorities at DHS Enforcement.

Assuming that the Immigration Courts eventually reopen their doors for non-detained cases (the vast, vast majority of the docket), the additional mess and chaos created in an already dysfunctional and mismanaged system though Trump’s mindless and unnecessary shutdown is likely to be irreparable.

PWS

01-10-19

NO, IT’S NOT “OBAMA JUDGES IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT” – Federal Judges Across The Spectrum & Throughout The Country Are Handing Scofflaw Prez A Record Number Of Well-Earned Defeats!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/22/trump-judicial-fantasy-what-chief-justice-roberts-could-have-told-him-didnt/

Fred Barbash reports for the WashPost:

Late Monday, a U.S. district judge in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply. Trump’s reaction was to add “Obama” judges, specifically those sitting on the 9th Circuit out West, to his list of those responsible for what he calls the nation’s “open borders.”

“This was an Obama judge,” the president said. “And I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore. Everybody that wants to sue the United States, they file their case in — almost — they file their case in the 9th Circuit. And it means an automatic loss no matter what you do, no matter how good your case is.” He strung out the theme on Thanksgiving, demonizing the judges who, he tweeted, will be responsible for “bedlam, chaos, injury and death” for not letting law enforcement do their jobs.

His attack on Judge Jon S. Tigar, who issued the temporary order on asylum, was sufficient to arouse Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Trump clashes with conservative chief justice over judiciary

Chief Justice John Roberts pointedly defended the independence of the federal judiciary on Nov. 21 after President Trump criticized the courts. (Reuters)

As unusual as Roberts’s comments were, he could have said so much more, like maybe, you’ve got to be kidding, Mr. President, if you think your judicial problems are confined to “Obama” judges in a single circuit.

He could have noted that the number of rulings against his administration’s actions now stands somewhere in the range of about 40 to 50, according to a rough estimate by The Washington Post. Norman Siegel, writing at Law.com in January, counted 37 “major” losses, and that was in January, before numerous other rulings that thwarted Trump administration decisions.

And he could have observed that all of this is a bit of a surprise. All presidents lose cases. But a losing streak of this magnitude for a president is a new phenomenon.

Despite the endless decades of rhetoric about “judicial activism,” judges at the district court level are generally a timid lot when it comes to confronting presidents. Historically, they are inclined to do what former federal judge Nancy Gertner calls “duck, avoid and evade.”

“Now,” she wrote in the April issue of NYU Law Review, “I am not so certain. . . . Perhaps ‘judging in a time of Trump’ ” is different, she wrote. “It is one thing to ‘duck, avoid and evade’ when you believe that official actors are acting more or less within constitutional bounds. It is another to do so when you are concerned about real abuse of power.”

An abuse of power was what Tigar found: “Whatever the scope of the President’s authority,” he wrote, “he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.” Trump did not discuss Tigar’s actual findings.

The biggest defeats have included four decisions blocking the president’s travel ban before the Supreme Court finally upheld its third iteration; his attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, blocked by at least four courts; and the proposed ban on transgender people in the military, stopped in its tracks by no fewer than four judges, with two of the rulings upheld by appeals courts. Judges in Chicago and Philadelphia, as well as California, temporarily stopped Trump’s “sanctuary cities” crackdown.

Trump calls court ‘totally out of control’

President Trump slammed the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Nov. 22, telling reporters it was “very unfair to law enforcement.” (The Washington Post)

A total of five rulings, by judges in Oregon, New York and the District of Columbia, among other places, enjoined the administration from cutting off funds to teen pregnancy prevention programs that failed to preach abstinence to the satisfaction of the Department of Health and Human Services.

This doesn’t count environmental rulings, like the Nov. 8 one halting construction of the Keystone XL pipeline issued by a judge in Montana. Judge Brian Morris was indeed appointed by President Barack Obama, though he clerked for the most conservative chief justice in modern history, William H. Rehnquist.

Roberts could have noted that those defeats have come at the hands of judges appointed not just by Democratic presidents but by Republicans dating all the way back to Ronald Reagan.

It was U.S. District Court Judge Dana M. Sabraw, for example, a California jurist appointed by President George W. Bush, who ripped the administration repeatedly for its family separation debacle.

[The Trump administration’s crazy losing streak in the courts: No, Jeff Sessions, it’s not about the judges]

And how could Trump forget that it was his own appointee, Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who slapped down the effort to ban CNN’s Jim Acosta from the White House.

Many of these judges do indeed sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which covers a vast swath of territory of nine states — California, Nevada, Arizona, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska and Idaho — and Guam and Northern Marianas, and is a traditional target for conservatives).

But as noted, rulings thwarting Trump have also come from judges sitting in New York, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan and beyond.

While there’s no scientific way of comparing judicial rhetoric, Republican appointees outside the 9th Circuit have actually seemed more inclined than others to lecture the president about the Constitution.

One of the toughest dressings-down came from a decision blocking Trump’s “sanctuary cities” crackdown written by Judge Ilana Rovner, appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, based in Chicago. In a decision joined by a Gerald Ford appointee and a Reagan appointee upholding a lower-court ruling by a Reagan appointee, she lit into the Trump administration for assuming powers to withhold money not granted to it by Congress to punish states and cities that didn’t go along with efforts to round up those in the country illegally.

Her message to Trump and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, translated, was basically, who do you think you are?

Our role in this case is not to assess the optimal immigration policies for our country. . . . The founders of our country well understood that the concentration of power threatens individual liberty and established a bulwark against such tyranny by creating a separation of powers among the branches of government. If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescense of elected legislators, the check against tyranny is forsaken.

There was one possibly accurate observation in Trump’s comments: He said his losses sometimes seem “automatic.”

Based on the record, that’s not far from the truth.

But Roberts would never say that.

***************************************************

Much of what Trump says are outright lies or racist, White Nationalist false narratives. While sadly that has proved to sometimes be a “winning” political strategy (because of a system that allows minority rule), it’s seldom a good litigating strategy in the 21st Century.

So, it’s hardly surprising that Trump is a “Big Loser” in court. It’s predictably outrageous for Trump to make the bogus claim that the courts are “out of control.” In fact, Trump and his scofflaw Administration are totally out of control, particularly in their often illegal and always immoral immigration policies. Indeed, until next January when the Democrats retake control of the House, the Federal Courts have actually been the only meaningful control on Trump. Perhaps their efforts will be enough to save the country from the greatest existential threat since world War II. Only time will tell.

PWS

11-23-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SCOFFLAWS’ LATEST PLOT AGINST ASYLUM SEEKERS SURE TO CAUSE INTERNATIONAL CHAOS & DRAW NEW LEGAL CHALLENGES – No Wonder These Immoral Cowards Have Such Fear Of Truly Independent Judges (Not To Be Confused With EOIR’s “Captive Judges”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-plan-would-force-asylum-seekers-to-wait-in-mexico-as-cases-are-processed-a-major-break-with-current-policy/2018/11/21/5ad47e82-ede8-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html?utm_term=.4059c5192c0c

Nick MIroff, Joshua Partlow, and Josh Dawsey report for the WashPost:

November 21 at 10:18 PM

Central Americans who arrive at U.S. border crossings seeking asylum in the United States will have to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed under sweeping new measures the Trump administration is preparing to implement, according to internal planning documents and three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the initiative.

According to DHS memos obtained by The Washington Post on Wednesday, Central American asylum seekers who cannot establish a “reasonable fear” of persecution in Mexico will not be allowed to enter the United States and would be turned around at the border.

The plan, called “Remain in Mexico,” amounts to a major break with current screening procedures, which generally allow those who establish a fear of return to their home countries to avoid immediate deportation and remain in the United States until they can get a hearing with an immigration judge. Trump despises this system, which he calls “catch and release,” and has vowed to end it.

Among the thousands of Central American migrants traveling by caravan across Mexico, many hope to apply for asylum due to threats of gang violence or other persecution in their home countries. They had expected to be able to stay in the United States while their claims move through immigration court. The new rules would disrupt those plans, and the hopes of other Central Americans who seek asylum in the United States each year.

[Trump lashes out at judge after order to allow illegal border crossers to seek asylum]

Trump remains furious about the caravan and the legal setbacks his administration has suffered in federal court, demanding hard-line policy ideas from aides. Senior adviser Stephen Miller has pushed to implement the Remain in Mexico plan immediately, though other senior officials have expressed concern about implementing it amid sensitive negotiations with the Mexican government, according to two DHS officials and a White House adviser with knowledge of the plan, which was discussed at the White House on Tuesday, people familiar with the matter said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the administration’s new plan, if a migrant does not specifically fear persecution in Mexico, that is where they will stay. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is sending teams of asylum officers from field offices in San Francisco, Washington, and Los Angeles to the ports of entry in the San Diego area to implement the new screening procedures, according to a USCIS official.

To cross into the United States, asylum seekers would have to meet a relatively higher bar in the screening procedure to establish that their fears of being in Mexico are enough to require immediate admission, the documents say.

“If you are determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will be permitted to remain in the United States while you await your hearing before an immigration judge,” the asylum officers will now tell those who arrive seeking humanitarian refuge, according to the DHS memos. “If you are not determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will remain in Mexico.”

Mexican border cities are among the most violent in the country, as drug cartels battle over access to smuggling routes into the United States. In the state of Baja California, which includes Tijuana, the State Department warns that “criminal activity and violence, including homicide, remain a primary concern throughout the state.”

The new rules will take effect as soon as Friday, according to two DHS officials familiar with the plans.

Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for DHS, issued a statement late Wednesday saying there are no immediate plans to implement these new measures.

“The President has made clear — every single legal option is on the table to secure our nation and to deal with the flood of illegal immigrants at our borders,” the statement says. “DHS is not implementing such a new enforcement program this week. Reporting on policies that do not exist creates uncertainty and confusion along our borders and has a negative real world impact. We will ensure — as always — that any new program or policy will comply with humanitarian obligations, uphold our national security and sovereignty, and is implemented with notice to the public and well coordinated with partners.”

A Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that current Mexican immigration law does not allow those seeking asylum in another country to stay in Mexico.

On Dec. 1, a new Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, will be sworn in, and it’s also unclear whether his transition team was consulted on the new asylum screening procedures.

The possibility that thousands of U.S.-bound asylum seekers would have to wait in Mexico for months, even years, could produce a significant financial burden for the government there, especially if the migrants remain in camps and shelters on a long-term basis.

[At the U.S. border, migrant caravan will slow to a crawl]

There are currently 6,000 migrants in the Tijuana area, many of them camped at a baseball field along the border, seeking to enter the United States. Several thousand more are en route to the city as part of caravan groups, according to Homeland Security estimates.

U.S. border officials have allowed about 60 to 100 asylum seekers to approach the San Ysidro port of entry each day for processing.

Last week, BuzzFeed News reported that U.S. and Mexican officials were discussing such a plan.

Mexico also appears to be taking a less-permissive attitude toward the new migrant caravans now entering the country.

Authorities detained more than 200 people, or nearly all of the latest caravan, who recently crossed Mexico’s southern border on their way to the United States. This is at least the fourth large group of migrants to cross into Mexico and attempt to walk to the U.S. border. They were picked up not long after crossing. The vast majority of the migrants were from El Salvador, according to Mexico’s National Immigration Institute.

After the first caravan this fall entered Mexico, President Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration offered migrants the chance to live and work in Mexico as long as they stayed in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Most chose not to accept this deal, because they wanted to travel to the United States.

nick.miroff@washpost.com

joshua.partlow@washpost.com

josh.dawsey@washpost.com

Partlow reported from Mexico City. Dawsey reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.

*******************************************************

Let’s see, Trump shrugs off the murder of a Washington Post journalist by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, downplays Putin’s overt interference in our elections, promotes mindless nationalism of the exact type responsible for two World Wars and tens of millions of avoidable deaths, and praises massive human rights violator and murderer Kim even as the latter is duping him on nukes. So, he’s scared to stand up to anyone powerful or for ideals and values that take courage to promote and advance.

But, when it comes to bullying, demonizing, and beating up on harmless but extremely vulnerable and desperate refugees, many of them women, children, and families fleeing for their lives, he excels. What does that tell us about the lack of character of the “man,” and the total lack of judgement and regard for American values of those in the minority who put him in office and continue to prop him up?

This appears to be a reaction to: 1) Federal Courts requiring Trump to follow the law; 2) Mexico’s refusal to be bullied into signing an absurdly inappropriate and totally one-sided “safe third country” agreement; 3) Congresses failure to fund the wasteful “Wall;” and 4) the near total, yet highly predictable, failure of Trump’s racist, White Nationalist inspired “get tough” immigration enforcement policies.

The Federal Courts are likely to permanently enjoin Trump from ignoring the law that specifically allows anyone in the U.S., legally or not, to apply for asylum. Additionally, Trump encourages violence against refugees and creates unsafe, inhumane conditions on the Mexican side of the border. Consequently, the end result of Trump’s intentional “making folks wait in Mexico” policy is likely to be encouraging individuals seeking asylum to enter illegally and then turn themselves in to the authorities to apply for asylum in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the better options of working with the UNHCR and Mexico to promote a multinational approach to protection and to solve the problems in the Northern Triangle causing this humanitarian flow remain unaddressed by the Trumpsters.

Also, when will the “Face of Evil,” Stephen Miller, finally be held accountable for his consistently cowardly and racist attacks on the law and the American legal system?

PWS

11-22-18

TRUMP & HIS TOADIES ARE THE BIGGEST LOSERS: Lower U.S. Courts Forcing Scofflaw, Anti-American Administration To Follow The Law, & There Is Nothing That Trumpsters Hate More Than Being “Outed” & Held Accountable For Their Many Misdeeds!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/donald-trump-losing-courts-jurisprudence.html

Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:

We have just witnessed what can now—after the accounting of several races that went uncalled on election night—be described as an all-out shellacking for Trump and Trumpism. The people who knocked on doors and texted voters and drove people to the polls leading up to the midterms may be wondering what’s to be done between now and the 2020 election. The answer is simple: protect the courts.

This doesn’t just mean fighting for the integrity, scope, and independence of the Robert Mueller investigation, which is now under existential threat from a president who openly wants his new acting attorney general to blow the thing up altogether. As we wait for Mueller’s next move, it’s tempting to assume that whatever he may have is already enough to place the president in immediate and serious legal jeopardy. Maybe. In many ways even that result will depend on a robust and independent judicial branch—something this president has been tearing down since the 2016 campaign.

Between the impending conclusion of the Mueller probe and the promise of oversight from various Democratic-controlled House committees come January, it’s clear that the president is starting to panic. And it’s easy to see why—given his tax returns, financial dealings, Russian investments, and other wrongdoing being surfaced in litigation, he has a good deal to worry about.

But that brings us once more to the greatest and least appreciated place at which President Donald Trump is proving to be the losing-est loser of all: the courts. Because they happen so frequently, it’s almost impossible to keep track of all the massive and consequential rulings against this president and his administration that are logged every week and rarely viewed in the aggregate. But let’s try: Late Monday night, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the president’s Nov. 9 rule that barred migrants from applying for asylum unless they made the request at a legal checkpoint. The judge’s order applies nationally. Last Friday’s decision—by a Trump-appointed judge—to side with CNN against the White House in a dispute about revoked press credentials is only the most recent iteration of a near-constant drip-drip of legal losses. Even with a bench now containing almost 1 in 6 Trump appointed judges (and these are not your President Bush–edition conservative judges), Trump mainly loses, and then loses some more.

It’s almost impossible to keep track of all the massive and consequential rulings against this president and his administration that are logged every week.

Here’s another set: On Nov. 9, a federal judge in Montana temporarily blocked construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, ruling that the Trump administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires “reasoned” explanations for government decisions and reversals. (The president immediately decried the ruling as “political” and “a disgrace.”) Indeed, this is just the most recent in a line of environmental cases Trump keeps losing in the federal courts. One recent tally shows the Trump administration has actually lost in all but one of the legal challenges it’s brought in its efforts to undo Obama-era regulations. The government has either lost or ditched its position in 18 others. As a recent Brookings roundup notes, this 5 percent “win rate is far below the normal agency win rate, which averages 69 percent across eleven studies.”

But there’s so much more. Also in November, a federal judge allowed the massive emoluments lawsuit filed against Trump in Maryland and D.C. to proceed over the Justice Department’s objections. In August, a federal judge struck down the bulk of three separate executive orders seeking to hobble unions that Trump had signed in an attempt to make it easier to fire federal employees. While we were all looking for solace to the great media blackout that is the Mueller investigation, federal courts halted the Trump effort to ban transgender members of the military, stopped the effort to kill DACA, assisted in terminating the president’s circus-level vote fraud commission, and stymied efforts to defund sanctuary cities. In August, a Trump-appointed judge batted away a challenge to Robert Mueller’s appointment. Courts have acted swiftly and decisively to end Trump’s irresponsible and cruel immigration policies. In many of these cases there are three and four separate losses logged in different courts. As Fred Barbash noted a few weeks ago in the Washington Post, “by a very rough count, 40 to 50 federal judges have weighed in against the Trump administration in cases.”

This is not, as Barbash observes, because these are all a bunch of demented “judicial activists,” as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions once attempted to argue. Nor are they the “judges of the Resistance”—a phrase that obscures more than it illuminates. A good many of these jurists were appointed by Republican presidents and in some cases Trump himself. No, the Trump administration is still managing to lose a tremendous amount of its lawsuits despite the fact that the judicial branch has changed dramatically in the past two years and the Supreme Court itself now tilts to the political right.

As Barbash further clarifies, Trump loses so much at least partially because his administration must often contort itself into absurd postures to justify policies enacted by random tweet (as was the trans ban) or by vengeful tantrum (as was the sanctuary cities policy) or without proper procedures (the asylum changes). When agencies make abrupt and ill-considered policy changes, then send lawyers into courts to defend them, even the most conservative judge is apt to be frustrated. Trump also loses whenever courts take his tweeting or offhand comments into account, because they often undermine or even contradict stated legal arguments. As we saw last week in the CNN litigation, Trump loses when pretextual claims about Jim Acosta assaulting a White House intern are exposed as the pretextual—that means false—claims they are. Judges tend to find all this less amusing than you might think.

Regardless of inclination or ideology, most judges still prefer facts to alternative facts, and reasoned discourse to free-flowing policy by hissy fit. And regardless of inclination or ideology, most judges still don’t like lies or liars. And regardless of inclination or ideology, most judges favor sobriety, stability, and the integrity of the judicial branch to nihilist attacks on everyone and everything that is fact-based. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that judges are as totally exhausted by the lurches and feints of the first Honey Boo Boo presidency as the rest of us.

Is everything perfect? No. As long as Mitch McConnell draws breath, more and more unsuitable Trump judges will be mashed through the Senate and confirmed, regardless of qualifications. And the Supreme Court, we must recall, ended up reversing the lower court rulings on the travel ban, deciding it was in no position to question the president’s integrity or motivations. The Supreme Court could stymie many of the important legal reversals noted above as well, but it’s worth remembering that it only hears about 70 cases a year. It doesn’t want to be in the business of rubber-stamping every crazy idea Trump bleats out, not if it cares about its own public approval and that of all the courts below. Even the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court, doesn’t want to go all in on all of it. And the losses are adding up.

It’s easy to miss the way this administration is getting trounced in the courts in part because it happens so often that we are almost inured to it, or because the courts are in fact behaving as they have largely done: as a quiet, meticulous check on that which is persistently unlawful and overreaching. It would be more newsworthy if courts behaved like rubber stamps every time the administration produced another ill-conceived rule change. David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, who wrote about this last year, puts it this way in an email:

The courts have ruled against the Trump administration consistently and appropriately. They have ruled against the administration on family separation, the revocation of DACA, punishing sanctuary cities, arbitrarily detaining asylum-seekers, barring young women in federal custody from obtaining abortion, expelling Jim Acosta from the White House press briefing, holding a US citizen as an enemy combatant without chargers or access to a lawyer, and banning transgender individuals from the military. We told Donald Trump we’ll see you in court, and we have, and for the most part, the courts have stood up for the rule of law against an administration that seems not to understand what it means.

To be sure, there is still a great deal to be worried about. Competent partisan hack Jeff Sessions is soon to be replaced by less competent partisan hack Matt Whitaker. If Whitaker—whose appointment as acting attorney general may not be legal—opts to deploy the DOJ’s astonishing power to do harm to civil liberties and basic freedoms, a lot of damage can be done in the coming months. That appointment is itself now subject to multiple legal challenges, which means that the man tasked with defending the Trump administration against the raft of legal challenges is himself the subject of a raft of legal challenges.

People who knocked on doors last month to protect democracy could continue that same work by expressing their support for Mueller and demanding a qualified attorney general. And the same reasoning can apply to the need to stand up for the judicial branch every time the president threatens, dismisses, or insults a judge or ruling. It’s also worth keeping in mind that all of these institutions depend on public support, and few of them punch back when the president attacks them. We need to support an independent judiciary for all the same reasons we have often failed to notice how effectively it has held Trumpism at bay. Because, despite being smacked around like a tetherball for two years, the courts have, to a large degree, acted soberly and with restraint. That’s not because judges have all, en masse, joined the “Resistance.” It’s because we still have a judiciary that resists that which is apparently still unlawful.

**********************************************

Like most would-be autocrats, Trump is a loser. With the exception of the Supreme majority’s “dive” on the Travel Ban case, the losses have been widespread, totally deserved, and have come from Federal Judges appointed by Presidents of both parties. And the good thing is that despite the Supreme’s failure to back the rule of law in the Travel Ban cases, the majority of Federal Judges have continued to uphold the law and the Constitution by rejecting the Trump Administration’s dishonest and unethical abuse of Executive authority.

PWS

11-21-18

LEGACY OF HATE – TRUMP’S APPOINTMENT OF HOMOPHOBIC JUDGES LIKELY TO TORMENT LGBTQ AMERICANS FOR DECADES TO COME! — Elections Have Consequences!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-judicial-nominee-abortion-rights_us_59d67a63e4b046f5ad96e117?feh

Jennifer Bendery reports for Huff Post:

WASHINGTON ― Thursday was a good day for Amy Coney Barrett. A Senate committee voted to advance her nomination to be a federal judge.

It wasn’t a pretty vote. Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee opposed her nomination. They scrutinized her past writings on abortion, which include her questioning the precedent of Roe v. Wade and condemning the birth control benefit under the Affordable Care Act as “a grave infringement on religious liberty.” One Democrat, Al Franken (Minn.), called her out for taking a speaking fee from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit that’s defended forced sterilization for transgender people and has been dubbed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But Republicans don’t need Democrats’ votes, and now Barrett, a 45-year-old law professor at the University of Notre Dame, is all but certain to be confirmed to a lifetime post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit — a court one level below the Supreme Court.

Barrett is the model judicial candidate for this White House: young, conservative, and opposed to abortion and LGBTQ rights. For all the stories about President Donald Trump using his executive power to roll back civil rights protections — in the past day, his administration axed the ACA birth control benefit and ended workplace protections for transgender people — it is here, on the courts, where his team is working most aggressively to reshape the country.

“Trump’s speed in nominating judges has been perhaps the most successful aspect of his presidency,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who specializes in judicial nominations. “Trump has easily surpassed Obama, Bush and Clinton at this point in the first year of their presidencies in terms of the sheer number nominated.”

He has. Ten months in, Trump has nominated 17 circuit court judges and 39 district court judges. That’s far more than former President Barack Obama’s seven circuit court nominees and four district court nominees by this point in his first year of office. Former President George W. Bush had nominated 11 circuit judges and 31 district judges by this point.

He’s also got more court seats to fill. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president ― double the number of vacancies Obama inherited when he took office. That’s largely due to Republicans’ years-long strategy of denying votes to Obama’s court picks to keep those seats empty for a future GOP president to fill. It worked.

If Trump’s current judicial nominees are a preview of the kinds of judges he plans to nominate in the coming years, prepare for a significantly more socially conservative group of people shaping the nation’s laws.

Consider John Bush. The Senate confirmed him in July, on a party-line vote, to a lifetime post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Bush, 52, has compared abortion to slavery and referred to them as “the two greatest tragedies in our country.” He has also said he strongly disagrees with same-sex marriage, mocked climate change and proclaimed “the witch is dead” when he thought the Affordable Care Act might not be enacted.

The Senate also confirmed Kevin Newsom, 44, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in August. He wrote a 2000 law review article equating the rationale of Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision upholding slavery. He also argued in a 2005 article for the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal organization, that Title IX does not protect people who face retaliation for reporting gender discrimination. The Supreme Court later rejected that position.

Ralph Erickson, 58, was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in September. As a district judge in 2016, he was one of two judges in the country who ordered the federal government not to enforce health care nondiscrimination protections for transgender people.

Here’s U.S. circuit court judge John Bush testifying in his Senate confirmation hearing in June. He thinks abortion is like slavery, and they are “the two greatest tragedies in our country.”

These are just judges that have been confirmed. Nominees in the queue include Leonard Grasz, Trump’s pick for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Grasz, 56, proposed amending the Omaha City Charter in 2013 to let employers discriminate against LGBTQ people. He has also compared the “personhood” of fetuses to the civil rights of Native Americans and African-Americans, according to an exhaustive report issued by the Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning advocacy group that focuses on the federal judiciary.

Trump’s effort to shift the federal bench to the right isn’t just aimed at district and circuit courts. He nominated Damien Schiff, a 37-year-old attorney, to a 15-year gig on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Schiff has criticized efforts to prevent bullying of LGBTQ students, referring to messages of equality as “teaching ‘gayness’ in schools.” He also argued that states should be allowed to criminalize “consensual sodomy.”

Part of the reason the White House has been able to nominate so many judges, so quickly, is because it’s been focused on filling court vacancies in states represented by two Republican senators. It’s easier for Trump’s team to work with Republicans in picking nominees, and then in moving them forward in committee, where it takes both home-state senators turning in a “blue slip” to get the hearing process going.

Trump has been less successful in confirming nominees, though. That’s partly because in the mad rush to fill courts seats, the White House isn’t reviewing nominees’ records as thoroughly as, say, the Obama administration did. That means more controversial nominees and more scrutiny. Democrats aren’t exactly eager to cooperate, either, given the way Republicans treated Obama’s judicial nominees (remember Merrick Garland?).

But as Trump plows through judicial nominations that will be a part of his legacy for decades, the only thing Democrats can do while they’re in the minority, for the most part, is make noise.

If they want real change, says Tobias, “Democrats need to win elections.”

*****************************************

Homophobe Jeff Sessions’s time as Attorney General won’t extend beyond the Trump Administration, if that long. However, the damage he has done to the U.S. legal system, our Constitution, the Department of Justice, and LGBTQ Americans won’t be easily repaired, if ever.

But, life tenured Federal Judges are an even bigger problem. These “robed bigots” will be inflicting cruel, discriminatory, and degrading treatment on the U.S. LGBTQ Community from their benches for decades to come.

In the end, Professor Tobias is entirely correct:“Democrats need to win elections.” Otherwise, our LGBT family, colleagues, friends, and neighbors are going to continue to be targets for homophobic Federal Judges and GOP politicos for many decades.

PWS

10-08-17

Think The Federal Courts Are Going To Save Our Republic From Trump? — Guess Again! — Trump (Or, More Accurately The Heritage Foundation) Is About To Remake Them In His Own Image!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-judicial-nominees-federalist-society_us_59497166e4b04c5e50256f0c?lq

HuffPost reports:

“WASHINGTON ― Most days, it seems like President Donald Trump is sabotaging his own agenda, one tweet at a time. But the White House has been quietly plowing ahead in one area that will affect generations of people: the courts.

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president ― double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The reason Trump gets to fill so many seats is partly because Obama was slow to fill court vacancies early in his tenure. But the main reason is Republicans’ years-long strategy of denying votes to Obama’s court picks. They refused to recommend judicial nominees, filibustered others, used procedural rules to drag out the confirmation process and, by Obama’s final year, blocked nominees they had recommended just to prevent him from filling more seats.

Court vacancies have only increased since Trump took office, as older judges have steadily retired. Trump has already nominated more than three times as many judges as Obama had at this point in his presidency ― 21 compared with six for Obama.

With Republicans in control of the Senate, Trump’s court picks will have a relatively easy time getting confirmed, too. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), has hinted that he may tweak the committee’s rules to make it easier for Republicans to advance some of Trump’s nominees without Democratic support. And once nominees make it to the Senate floor, it takes only 51 votes to advance their nominations and confirm them. There are 52 Republicans, which means they could confirm all of Trump’s district and circuit court nominees without a single Democratic vote.

It used to take 60 votes to advance district and circuit court nominees, but Senate Democrats changed the filibuster rule in 2013 in order to get around a Republican blockade on Obama’s court picks. Now Trump benefits from that change.

It is, in effect, the perfect combination of factors for conservatives eager to tilt the nation’s courts to the right. Trump has piles of seats to fill, a list of nominees recommended to the White House by outside conservative groups, and a Republican Senate eager to confirm them.

“It is a huge opportunity,” said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who specializes in judicial nominations. “The question is how quickly they will move in the future. A lot of what they’ve done so far is low-hanging fruit and pretty easy to do.”

A good chunk of Trump’s judicial nominees so far have come through recommendations from The Federalist Society, a right-wing legal organization. Its executive vice president, Leonard Leo, was instrumental in helping the White House put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. He recommended Gorsuch to Trump last fall and took a temporary leave from his job earlier this year to help prepare Gorsuch for his Senate confirmation hearing.

Leo also gave Trump a list of names of potential judicial picks that conservatives would like to see on the federal bench. Trump has already nominated several of them.

One of them is John Bush, a Kentucky lawyer who runs a local chapter of The Federalist Society. Trump nominated Bush, 52, last month to a lifetime post on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Progressive groups are vowing to fight his confirmation given some of his past remarks, which include comparing abortion to slavery and referring to them as “the two greatest tragedies in our country.” Bush has also said he strongly disagrees with same-sex marriage, mocked climate change and proclaimed “the witch is dead” when he thought the Affordable Care Act might not be enacted.

Damien Schiff, also a member of The Federalist Society, is Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The 37-year-old attorney at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation would serve a 15-year term if confirmed. He came under fire for calling Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “a judicial prostitute” on a blog several years ago. He has also criticized efforts to prevent bullying of LGBTQ students, referring to messages of equality as “teaching ‘gayness’ in schools,” and has argued that states should be allowed to criminalize “consensual sodomy.”

Both of those nominees had their Senate confirmation hearings last week. They’re now waiting for the Judiciary Committee to reconvene and vote out their nominations.

It’s not unusual for a president to consult with outside groups for potential judicial nominees. What’s different, says Tobias, is how heavily Trump seems to be relying on this particular group versus working directly with senators for judicial recommendations from their states, which is the standard path.

“I think Leonard Leo is just feeding him those people,” he said. “There are real questions about that, whether that’s good for the courts and gets us the finest nominees.”

*****************************************************

Read the entire article at the above link.

Remember, folks, these are lifetime appointments, so although, one way or another, Trump will eventually be gone, his judges will be around for decades. And, because Democrats can’t win Senate elections, they have lost their power to exert any influence whatsoever over Trump’s choices.

PWS

06-22-17

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lauren Wyatt

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: