☹️HE BEAT THE GOVERNMENT TWICE IN COURT — But, After Three Years In Jail Without Being Charged With Any Crime, Omar Ameen Still Can’t Get A Bond From Garland’s Courts — How Can A System Where The Prosecutor Makes The Rules & Picks The Judges, Mostly From The Ranks Of Former Prosecutors, Provide The “Fair & Impartial Judging” Required By Due Process?

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2022

Contacts:

Immigrant Legal Defense

Ilyce Shugall, ilyce@ild.org, (415) 758-3765

Siobhan Waldron, siobhan@ild.org, (510) 479-0972

Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, The University of Chicago Law School Nicole Hallett, nhallett@uchicago.edu, (203) 910-1980

Omar Ameen Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking His Release

After the U.S. Government Fails Once Again to Prove Any Connection to Terrorism

San Francisco, CA. Immigrant Legal Defense and the University of Chicago Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Omar Ameen seeking his immediate release from immigration custody. Mr. Ameen has been held by the U.S. government for over three years based on false allegations that he was involved in terrorism in Iraq before he arrived in the United States as a refugee. Multiple courts have now rejected those allegations. The petition alleges that his continued detention in these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

After an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Iraqi government issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the 2014 murder of a police officer in Rawa, Iraq. Mr. Ameen was subsequently arrested by U.S. authorities in August 2018 and placed in extradition proceedings, with the government arguing that not only was Omar responsible for the 2014 murder, but that he also occupied a leadership position in ISIS. After two and a half years of fighting his extradition, the federal magistrate judge found that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because Mr. Ameen had been in Turkey, not Iraq, at the time of the murder. He further found that there was no evidence that Mr. Ameen was an ISIS leader and ordered his immediate release.

Instead of releasing him or charging him with a crime, DHS took Mr. Ameen into immigration custody, and placed him in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS abandoned the murder claim, but otherwise made the same terrorism allegations against Mr. Ameen in immigration court that had been made – and rejected – in the extradition proceedings. After months of proceedings, the immigration judge found that the government had not proved that Mr. Ameen had any involvement with terrorism, yet still denied him bond while he seeks relief from deportation. Mr. Ameen continues to fight for his freedom, to remain in the United States, and to clear his name.

“It is a fundamental principle that the government cannot detain someone based on unsubstantiated rumors and unproven accusations,” said Ilyce Shugall, an attorney with Immigration Legal Defense (ILD) and a member of Mr. Ameen’s legal team. “The government keeps losing, yet continues to believe it can detain Omar indefinitely without cause. The Constitution does not allow such a cavalier denial of individual liberty.”

“Omar’s bond request was denied by the same agency – the Department of Justice – that has maliciously targeted for him years. Omar deserves a fair hearing in federal court,” said Siobhan Waldron, another ILD attorney on Mr. Ameen’s legal team.

“The government seems to think that it can do whatever it wants as long as it invokes the word ‘terrorism,’” said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, “Rather than admit it was wrong about Omar, the government will go to extraordinary measures to keep him locked up. We are asking the federal court to put a stop to this abuse of power.”

###

Immigrant Legal Defense’s mission is to promote justice through the provision of legal representation to underserved immigrant communities.

The Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is a clinical program of the University of Chicago Law School and provides representation to immigrants in Chicago and throughout the country.

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

Unfortunately, “cavalier denial of individual liberty” largely describes the daily operations of Garland’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged “wholly owned Immigration Courts” — where due process, scholarship, quality, and efficiency are afterthoughts, at best. “Malicious targeting” — that’s a Stephen Miller specialty shamelessly carried forth by Garland in too many instances! Miller must be gratified, and not a little amazed, to find that the guy Dem progressives and human rights advocates thought would be leading the charge to undo Miller’s White Nationalist, scofflaw attack on migrants and people of color would instead be proudly “carrying his water” for him.

To punctuate my point, today Garland’s Solicitor General will follow in the disgraceful footsteps of predecessors in both GOP and Dem Administrations. Essentially (that is, stripped of its disingenuous legal gobbledygook), the SG will argue that individuals, imprisoned without conviction, struggling to vindicate their rights before Garland’s broken, backlogged, and notoriously pro-Government, anti-immigrant Immigration Courts, renowned for their sloppiness and bad judging, are not really “persons” under the Constitution and therefore can be arbitrarily imprisoned indefinitely, in conditions that are often worse than those for convicted felons, without any individualized rationale and without recourse to “real” courts (e.g., Article III courts not directly controlled by the DOJ).

“The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court seems to be planning to eliminate the only way a lot of people in immigration detention can challenge their imprisonment,” appellate public defender Sam Feldman commented in a quote-tweet. “People would still be held illegally, but no court could do anything about it.”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/jan-11-2022-sc-oral-arg-previews-detention-bond-jurisdiction

One might assume that our nation’s highest Court would unanimously make short-shrift of the SG’s scofflaw arguments and send her packing. After all, that’s what several lower courts have done! But, most experts predict the exactly opposite result from a Supremes’ majority firmly committed to “Dred Scottification” — that is de-humanization and de-personification” — of people of color and migrants under the Constitution.

It’s painfully obvious that Congress must create an independent Article I Immigration Court not beholden to the Executive Branch. But, don’t hold your breath, given the current political gridlock in Washington. It’s equally clear that the Article IIIs, from the Supremes down, have “swallowed the whistle” by not striking down this blatantly unconstitutional system, thereby forcing Congress to take corrective action to bring the system into line with our Constitution.

In the meantime, Garland could bring in better-qualified expert judges, reform procedures, and appoint competent professional administrators who would institutionalize fairness, efficiency, and independence that would help transition the Immigration Courts to a new structure outside the DOJ. He could stop echoing Stephen Miller in litigation.

He could have replaced the architects of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and exponentially growing back logs with practical scholars and progressive experts who could reduce backlogs and establish order without violating human or legal rights of individuals. He could have set a “new tone” by publicly insisting that all coming before his Immigration Courts be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and professionalism.

But, instead, Garland has stubbornly eschewed the recommendations of immigration and human rights experts while allowing and even defending the trashing of the rule of law at the border and elsewhere where migrants are concerned. He’s also done it with many questionably qualified “holdover” judges and administrators appointed by Sessions and Barr because of their perceived willingness, or in some cases downright enthusiasm, to stomp on the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.

It’s curious conduct from a guy who once was only “one Mitch McConnell away” from a seat on the Supremes! I guess the “due process” Garland got from McConnell and his GOP colleagues is all that he thinks migrants and other “non-persons” of color get in his wholly-owned “courts.”

Good luck to our Round Table colleague, Judge Ilyce Shugall, and her great team, on this litigation! Obviously, the wrong folks are on the Federal Bench — at all levels of our broken and floundering system.

Interestingly, Judge Shugall was once an Immigration Judge until forced to prematurely resign, as a matter of conscience, by the lawless anti-immigrant policies of the Trump Administration carried out through its DOJ. As in many cases, the Government’s loss is the Round Table’s gain!🛡⚔️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-11-22

⚖️🗽🇺🇸LATEST IMMIGRATION CERT GRANT PRESENTS OPPORTUNITY FOR BIDEN & GARLAND TO CONFESS ERROR, ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY, & START APPLYING “PRACTICAL SCHOLARSHIP” TO ADJUST STATUS OF MANY DESERVING LONG-TIME TPS HOLDERS WHO NOW QUALIFY FOR PERMANENT STATUS! — Will The Biden Team & The Garland Group @ DOJ Finally Tap A Better Qualified, Ethical Solicitor General With An Understanding Of, & Firm Commitment To, A Progressive Use Of Immigration Laws To Further Human Rights, Achieve Equal Justice, & Stop Promoting Unnecessary, Wasteful, Avoidable “Circuit Spits?” — After Four Years Of Unmitigated Kakistocracy,🤮☠️ DOJ & DHS Both Need Immediate “De-Clownification” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ !

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/01/supreme-court-to-review-adjustment-of-statustps-case.html

Dean Kevin Johnson reports @ ImmigrationProf Blog:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez v. Wolf, which presents the question under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient may adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The Third Circuit held that TPS recipients were not entitled to adjust their status because TPS status was not an “admission,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The Third Circuit decision in Sanchez conflicts with the rulings of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.

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

Here’s the government’s position in a nutshell: Notwithstanding the “plain language” of section 244(f)(4) which makes holders of TPS status eligible to adjust status in the U.S. if they meet all of the requirements for legal immigration (usually an an approved visa petition based on family ties or job skills), we have employed legal gobbledygook to refuse to adjust them. Thereby, we mindlessly keep them in “suspended animation” in the U.S. although they are long-time productive members of our society who have resided here with permission and work authorization and now meet our criteria for permanent immigration.

Sound pretty stupid? That’s because it is! I actually had this issue argued before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Not surprisingly, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was unable to come up with any rational reason for circumventing the statutory language to achieve a nonsensical result that actually unnecessarily inflated the case backlog and served no legitimate government purpose. Needless to say, I ruled in the respondent’s favor.

This isn’t “rocket science.” The new SG should join the petitioner’s counsel, JAIME W. APARISI (who regularly appeared before me in Arlington) and LISA S. BLATT (Williams & Connolly LLP) in agreeing that this issue was correctly resolved in the respondents’ favor by the Sixth & Ninth Circuits.

Then, ICE should ask the “new BIA” (real judges with immigration and human rights backgrounds appointed by AG Garland) to adopt this view nationwide.

Presto!

No more bogus, contrived “circuit split;”
TPSers with adjustment eligibility can be taken out of EOIR’s ridiculous 1.1 – 1.5 million case backlog and returned to USCIS for routine adjustment of status;
Productive, long-time members of our society can become green card holders, get on the path to citizenship, and reach their full productive potential for both their benefit and the benefit of our society;
A win, win, win, instead of wasting time attempting to achieve an illegal, undesirable, yet fundamentally stupid, irrational, and counterproductive result;
And, unlike the stupidity going on now, it actually doesn’t require expenditure of funds (actually will save and perhaps even generate money from adjustment filing fees), major regulatory changes, new legislation, or protracted litigation. It’s “low hanging fruit” that the Trump immigration kakistocracy has let rot on the tree! Rational administration of the immigration laws can actually be quite efficient.

Is it any wonder that the EOIR bogus “court,” whose “guiding principle” is “always construe the law against the individual and in favor of DHS” is building uncontrollable backlog hand over fist, even with double the number of “judges?” This is “fraud, waste, and abuse” in action! 💸🤮 Not something I’d want to “own” if I were Judge Garland (which, of course, I’m not, and never will be)!

That’s how “practical scholarship” @ EOIR, DOJ, and ICE; smarter, better, more ethical progressive leadership at the DOJ; and the private/NGO/academic bar can work together to solve legal problems and stop wasting the time of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. Perhaps, with the time saved, the Williams Connolly LLP team can even take some more pro bono asylum cases, make the system work better at the “retail level,” and save some deserving lives of vulnerable individuals who have been mistreated by Miller and his neo-Nazi gang of thugs and the malicious incompetents now “running” EOIR (into the ground) in the process.

Not rocket science! But, it will require Judge Garland to bring in some members of the NDPA who actually understand the interrelated issues of immigration, human rights, due process, civil rights, equal justice, and practical problem solving to replace the current “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ at EOIR and the DOJ. (Not to mention, a comprehensive “de-clownification” 🦹🏿‍♂️🤡 of DHS by Secretary-designate Mayorkas and his team). All of those skills have been conspicuously absent from the Executive branch during the last four years of kakistocracy.

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ Of Government Begin!

PWS

01-09-21

@THE SUPREMES⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️: Round Table🛡, ACLU 🗽Push Back Against S.G. Francisco’s 🤮False/Misleading Narratives! – NO, Migrants Seeking Mandatory Protection From Persecution In “Withholding Only Proceedings” Are NOT “Just Like Any Other Deportable Individuals” – NO, Providing Due Process In Bond Hearings Will NOT “Overload” The System — It’s A Significant, Yet Routine, Part Of Any Immigration Judge’s Job! – What “Overloads” The System Is The Race-Driven “Malicious Incompetence” Of Trump’s DOJ/EOIR!

J Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Asher Stockler reports for Law360:

. . . .

But the government said that, even if these withholding claims succeed, it still retains the right to deport the group of immigrants to other countries that will accept them. Because deportation is still on the table regardless of the status of those claims, the administration argued, the group of immigrants should be treated identically to those who are about to be deported.

The ACLU rebutted that argument, saying that such third-country deportations are exceedingly rare. Because of this, the ACLU said the availability of a third-country option should not mean the

https://www.law360.com/articles/1327892/print?section=appellate 1/2

11/12/2020 Justices Told Of Due Process Issues Without Bond Hearings – Law360

deportation-ready provision of the law kicks in. According to the American Immigration Council, fewer than 2% of immigrants who received persecution-based relief in fiscal year 2017 were ultimately deported to a third country.

The Justice Department also raised the possibility that having to scrutinize the practical odds of removal from immigrant to immigrant would be “patently unworkable.”

“A case-by-case approach … would needlessly add to the burdens that are already ‘overwhelming our immigration system,'” the department said, quoting a prior case.

But a coalition of former immigration trial and appeals judges pushed back on that idea with their own amicus brief Thursday.

“Bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings are no different than bond hearings in other contexts,” the group, representing 34 judges who have cumulatively overseen thousands of cases, wrote. “Contrary to [the administration’s] assertion, bond hearings in withholding of removal proceedings neither lead to a slowdown of cases that ‘thwart Congress’ objectives’ in enacting the immigration laws, nor impose an administrative burden on immigration courts.” The American Civil Liberties Union is represented by its own Michael Tan, Omar Jadwat, Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang and David D. Cole.

The coalition of former judges is represented by David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Hughes, Michael Kimberly and Andrew Lyons-Berg of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rachel McFarland of the Legal Aid Justice Center, Mark Stevens of Murray Osorio PLLC, and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic.

The Trump administration is represented by Noel Francisco, Jeffrey Wall, Edwin Kneedler and Vivek Suri of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and Lauren Fascett, Brian Ward and Joseph Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

The case is Tony H. Pham et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez et al., case number 19-897, at the U.S. Supreme Court.

–Editing by Michael Watanabe.

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

Read the complete article over on Law360. The case comes from the Fourth Circuit. Hopefully, the Biden-Harris Administration will withdraw the SG’s disingenuous petition (if not already denied by the Supremes) and implement the Fourth Circuit’s correct decision nationwide.

That’s the way to promote due process and judicial efficiency instead of constantly promoting inhumanity, abuse of due process, judicial inefficiency (fair adjudication is hindered by unnecessary detention in the Gulag), and chaos!

Many, many, many thanks to our all-star pro bono team:

David Keyko, Robert Sills, Matthew Putorti, Daryl Kleiman, Patricia Rothenberg and Roland Reimers of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Couldn’t have done it without you guys! You constantly “Make us look smart!”

You can read our complete amicus brief here:

19-897 bsac Immigration Judges

According to “Round Table Oracle,” Sir Jeffrey S. Chase, this is our sixth filed Supreme Court amicus brief, with another currently in the pipeline.

And, they do make a difference! For those who missed it, the Round Table amicus in Niz-Chavez v. Barr was specifically mentioned during oral argument before the Court: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471191-1/niz-chavez-v-barr-attorney-general-oral-argument

I also note with great pride the following “charter members” of the “New Due Process Army” who were on the plaintiffs’ legal team:

Rachel McFarland, my former Georgetown Law student;
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court, and is an occasional contributor to “Courtside;
Mark Stevens, who appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Well done, fearless fighters for due process!

Rachel McFarland
Legal Aid Justice Center
Charter Member, New Due Process Army

This disgraceful performance by the Solicitor General’s Office (once revered, now reviled) has become “the norm” under Trump. Francisco’s arguments are those of an attorney who didn’t do “due diligence,” but doesn’t expect the Court to know or care what really happens in Immigration Court. And, unfortunately, with the exception of Justice Sotomayor and perhaps Justice Kagan, that may well be a correct assumption. But that doesn’t make it any less of a powerful and disturbing indictment of our entire U.S. Justice system in the age of Trump.

Reality check: I routinely did 10-15, sometimes more, bond hearings at a Detained Master Calendar in less than one hour. I treated everyone fairly, applied the correct legal criteria, and set reasonable bonds (usually around $5,000) for everyone legally eligible. Almost all represented asylum seekers and withholding seekers eligible for bond who had filed complete and well-documented asylum or withholding applications were released on bond. About 99% showed up for their merits hearings.

I encouraged attorneys on both sides to file documents in advance, discuss the case with each other, and present a proposed agreed bond amount or a range of amounts to me whenever possible. Bond hearings were really important (freedom from unnecessary restraint is one of our most fundamental rights), but they weren’t “rocket science.” Bond hearings actually ran like clockwork.

Indeed, if the attorneys were “really on the ball,” and ICE managed to find and present all the detainees timely, I could probably do 10-15 bond cases in 30 minutes, and get them all right. My courtroom and my approach weren’t any different from that of my other then-colleagues at Arlington. In thirteen years on the bench, I set thousands of bonds and probably had no more than six appeals to the BIA from my bond decisions. I also reviewed many bond appeals at the BIA. (Although, most bond appeals to the BIA were “mooted” by the issuance of a final order in the detained case before the bond appeal was adjudicated.) Most took fewer than 15 minutes.

Indeed, my past experience suggests that a system led (not necessarily “run”) by competent judicial professionals and staffed with real judges with expertise in immigration, asylum, and human rights and unswervingly committed to due process and fundamental fairness could establish “best practices” that would drastically increase efficiency, cut (rather than mindlessly and exponentially expand) backlogs, without cutting out anyone’s rights. In other words, EOIR potentially could be a “model American judiciary,” as it actually was once envisioned, rather than the slimy mass of disastrous incompetence and the national embarrassment that it is today!

The idea that doing something as straightforward as a bond hearing would tie the system in knots is pure poppycock and a stunning insult to all Immigration Judges delivered by a Solicitor General who has never done a bond case in his life!

Yes the system is overwhelmingly backlogged and dysfunctional! But that has nothing to do with giving respondents due process bond hearings.

It has everything to do with unconstitutional and just plain stupid “politicization” and “weaponization” of the courts under gross incompetence and mismanagement by political hacks at the DOJ who have installed their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR. It also has to do with a disingenuous Solicitor General who advances a White Nationalist political agenda, rather than constitutional rights, fundamental fairness, rationality, and best practices. It has to do with a Supreme Court majority unwilling to take a stand for the legal rights and human dignity of the most vulnerable, and often most deserving, among us in the face of bullying and abuse by a corrupt, would-be authoritarian, fundamentally anti-American and anti-democracy regime.

It has to do with allowing a corrupt, nativist, invidiously-motivated regime to manipulate and intentionally misapply asylum and protection laws at the co-opted and captive DHS Asylum Office; thousands of “grantable” asylum cases are wrongfully and unnecessarily shuffled off to the Immigration Courts, thus artificially inflating backlogs and leading to more pressure to cut corners and dispense with due process.

It also paints an intentionally false and misleading picture that the problem is asylum applicants rather than the maliciously incompetent White Nationalists who have seized control of our system and acted to destroy years of structural development and accumulated institutional expertise.

Good Government matters! Maliciously incompetent Government threatens to destroy our nation! (Doubt that, just look at the totally inappropriate, entirely dishonest, response of the Trump kakistocracy to their overwhelming election defeat by Biden-Harris and the unwillingness of both the GOP and supporters to comply with democratic norms and operate in the real world of facts, rather than false narratives.)

Due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, simple human decency, and Good Government won’t happen until we get the White Nationalist hacks out of the DOJ and replace the “clown show” at EOIR with qualified members of the New Due Process Army. Problem solvers, rather than problem creators; over-achievers, rather than screw-ups!

The incoming Biden-Harris Administration is left with a stark, yet simple, choice: oust the malicious incompetents and bring in the “competents” from the NDPA to fix the system; or become part of the problem and have the resulting mess forever sully your Administration.

The Obama Administration (sadly) chose the latter. President Elect Biden appears bold, confident, self-aware, and flexible enough to recognize past mistakes. But, recognition without reconstruction (action) is useless! Don’t ruminate — govern! Like your life depends on it!

And, by no means is EOIR the only part of DOJ the needs “big time” reform and a thorough shake up. We must have a Solicitor General committed to following the rules of legal ethics and common human decency and who will insist on her or his staff doing likewise.

The next Solicitor General must also have demonstrated expertise in asylum, immigration, civil rights, and human rights laws and be committed to expanding due process, equal justice, racial justice, and fundamental fairness throughout the Government bureaucracy and “pushing” the Supremes to adopt and endorse best, rather than worst, practices in these areas.

American Justice and our court systems are in “free fall.” This is no time for more “amateur night at the Bijou.”

And here are some thoughts for the future if we really want to achieve “Good Government” and equal justice for all:

Every future Supreme Court Justice must have served a minimum of two years as a U.S. Immigration Judge with an “asylum grant rate” that is at or exceeds the national average for the U.S. Immigration Courts;
Every future Solicitor General must have done a minimum of ten pro bono asylum cases in U.S. Immigration Court.

Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!

PWS

11-14-20

WELCOME TO A NEW BRIGADE OF THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY: Justice Action Center! — Litigate, Litigate, Litigate — Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Karen Tumlin
Founder
Justice Action Center

Karen Tumlin, Founder

Karen Tumlin is a nationally recognized impact litigator focusing on immigrants’ rights. She successfully litigated numerous cases of national significance, including a challenge to the Trump Administration’s effort to end the DACA program and the Muslim Ban, as well as the constitutional challenge to Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. She formerly served as the Director of Legal Strategy and Legal Director for the National Immigration Law Center, where she built a legal department of over 15 staff who developed and led cases of national impact.

Contact Karen: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org

https://justiceactioncenter.org/

A Brief Description of JAC

Justice Action Center is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. There is tremendous unmet need in the litigation landscape for immigrant communities. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to bear to address unmet needs in currently underserved areas. There is also untapped potential in how litigation can be combined with digital strategies to empower clients and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants. Communications content around litigation that focuses primarily on putting forward legal voices to talk about immigrants does not have the same authentic voice as putting forward immigrants as the protagonists. JAC will focus on the creation of original content that amplifies immigrant voices. We believe that real change will come only when a larger base of supporters are activated on immigration issues—only then will courthouse wins pave the way for lasting change. JAC will partner with direct service providers and organizers to leverage the power of the existing landscape of immigrants’ rights organizations and also to fill in holes where impact litigation should be brought (but currently isn’t), or where communications and digital expertise could help reshape the narrative around immigration and immigrants.

The Problem

Urgent, Unmet Legal Need in the Immigrants’ Rights Field

Impact litigation has been an essential tool in blunting the Trump administration’s abuses against immigrants—but capacities are stretched thin and deployed unevenly. As a result, important civil rights abuses are going unchallenged.

Lawsuits attract media attention at key moments, but little planning is done to drive the narrative. Deliberate, client-driven communications plans are needed to maximize these moments to engage new audiences on immigration

Unequal Treatment

Precious impact litigation resources are currently being spread unevenly. While there is a deep bench of attorneys ready to take on high-profile issues, such as the termination of DACA or the latest asylum ban, other issues appear to have no legal advocacy. Examples include the massive worksite raids in underserved states such as Ohio and Texas or the severe abuses immigrants face in the nation’s vast detention system.

Underrepresented in Digital Media

There is a paucity of original, immigrant-centered digital content. The nation’s narrative no longer has to be set only by policymakers—it can be shaped by everyday people, including immigrants. We have not harnessed the power of the current digital landscape to promote pro-immigrant messages and engage new audiences.

JAC’s Solutions

1. Litigate on topics and in locations of unmet need.

2. Create original, immigrant-centered content designed to activate new audiences

3. Partner with direct services providers and organizers to elevate movement impact.

Get Involved

You can be part of helping build Justice Action Center.

Donate to Justice Action Center’s first year now.

Donate

Home
About

Who
Donate
Contact Us

Subscribe for JAC Updates

First Name

Last Name

Email (required) *

Constant Contact Use.

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

Welcome Karen and the JAC to the fight for Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency! Nothing less than the survival of our nation, and perhaps civilization, is at stake here!

The litigation angle is so critically important to this all-out war! The Federal Appellate Courts, and particularly the Supremes, have been largely complicit in Trump’s White Nationalist attack on the Rule of Law. There is no excuse whatsoever for the continuing unconstitutional outrages against individuals being committed by a biased Immigration Court System unlawfully controlled by biased and corrupt politicos.

Would a Federal Appellate Court Judge or a Supreme Court Justice agree to be tried for his or her life in a “court” before “judges” controlled by their prosecutor? Of course not! So why is it “Constitutionally OK” for asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals to be “tried” (often without lawyers or even “in absentia”) by “judges” controlled by Trump, Barr, and indirectly McAleenan? Why it “Constitutionally OK” for individuals whose only “crime” is asserting their legal rights to be detained indefinitely (sometimes until death) in conditions that would be held unconstitutional in an eyeblink if applied to convicted criminals?

Think I’m making this up? Check out he dissent by Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) in Barr v. East Side Sanctuary Covenant. There, seven of her spineless colleagues didn’t even bother to justify their decision lifting a lower court stay of a grotesque attack by the Trump Administration on the legal rights (and lives) of asylum seekers that violated the Constitution, a host of statutes and regulations, and international standards. Not only that, but it also enables a lawless Solicitor General to continue to cynically “short-circuit” the legal system and go directly to what Trump and his followers (contemptuously, but apparently correctly) believe to be a thoroughly compromised Supreme Court. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/11/supreme-tank-complicit-court-ends-u-s-asylum-protections-by-7-2-vote-endorses-trumps-white-nationalist-racist-attack-on-human-rights-eradication-of-refugee-act-of-1980/

These consequences aren’t “academic.” Innocent individuals, including children, will die, be tortured, or have their lives ruined by the Supremes’ abdication of duty and abandonment of human decency. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/20/profile-in-judicial-cowardice-article-iiis-dereliction-of-duty-leaves-brave-asylum-applicants-and-their-courageous-attorneys-defenseless-against-racist-onslaught-by-trump-administration/.

Undoubtedly energized by this exercise in “Supreme Complicity,” the Trump Administration has released a dizzying barrage of new attacks on the legal rights and humanity of migrants of all types, from asylum seekers to green card holders and immigrant visa applicants, in the weeks following East Side Sanctuary.

Or, check out this dissenting statement of Eleventh Circuit Judge Adelberto Jose Jordan in Diaz-Rivas v. U.S. Att’y Gen.:

In my view, Ms. Diaz-Rivas’ statistics—showing that from 2014 through 2016 asylum applicants outside of Atlanta’s immigration court were approximately 23 times more likely to succeed than asylum applicants in Atlanta—are disquieting and merit further inquiry by the BIA. See City of Miami, 614 F.2d at 1339. If these statistics pertained to a federal district court, the Administrative Office would begin an investigation in a heartbeat.

So what’s the result of the Eleventh Circuit majority’s cowardly abandonment of the Fifth Amendment? In a spectacular “in your face” move undoubtedly meant to play on the spineless response of the Eleventh Circuit to the “Asylum Free Zone” created in the Atlanta Immigration Court, Billy Barr actually promoted two of the Atlanta judges with the highest asylum denial rates, renowned for their rude and disrespectful treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers, to the Board of Immigration Appeals as part of his “court packing scheme” to promote worst practices and anti-asylum bias.

In other words, as a consequence of the Eleventh Circuit’s spineless complicity in the face of clear Due Process violations, these unqualified judges have now been empowered to abuse and refuse asylum applicants from coast to coast. Judicial corruption and complicity has real human life consequences for those trying to just survive below the “radar screen” of exalted overprivileged Ivory Tower Federal Appellate Judges.

The Ninth Circuit’s illegal “greenlighting” of the deadly “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” program in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan is another egregious example of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges abandoning their oaths of office (and writing complete legal gibberish, to boot).https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/07/fractured-9th-gives-go-ahead-to-remain-in-mexico-program-immigration-law-lab-v-mcaleenan/.

Every time an Appellate Judge signs off on a removal order produced without a fair and impartial adjudication in the unconstitutional Immigration Courts he or she is violating their oath of office. We’ve had enough! Why have life-tenured judges if they won’t stand up for our individual rights? It’s time to put an end to this cowardly judicial complicity in violation of our fundamental Constitutional rights (not to mention a host of statutory and regulatory violations that go unchecked in Immigration Courts every day).

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

PWS

10-05-19

SUPREME TANK: COMPLICIT COURT ENDS U.S. ASYLUM PROTECTIONS BY 7-2 VOTE — Endorses Trump’s White Nationalist Racist Attack On Human Rights & Eradication Of Refugee Act Of 1980 — On 09-11-19, Supremes Celebrate By Joining Trump’s Attack On America & Humanity! — Only Justices Ginsburg & Sotomayor Have Guts To Stand Up For Constitution & Rule Of Law!

Death On The Rio Grande — Supremes Sign Death Warrants For Vulnerable Refugees, Trash Refugee Act of 1980

19a230_k53l

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 1 SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 19A230 _________________
WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [September 11, 2019]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting from grant of stay.
Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law. After several organizations representing immi- grants sued to stop the rule from going into effect, a federal district court found that the organizations were likely to prevail and preliminarily enjoined the rule nationwide. A

2 BARR v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
federal appeals court narrowed the injunction to run only circuit-wide, but denied the Government’s motion for a complete stay.
Now the Government asks this Court to intervene and to stay the preliminary decisions below. This is an extraordinary request. Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would deny the stay.
The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule at issue here on July 16, 2019. See 84 Fed. Reg. 33829. In effect, the rule forbids almost all Central Americans—even unaccompanied children—to apply for asylum in the United States if they enter or seek to enter through the southern border, unless they were first denied asylum in Mexico or another third country. Id., at 33835, 33840; see also 385 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929–930 (ND Cal. 2019).
The District Court found that the rule was likely unlawful for at least three reasons. See id., at 938–957. First, the court found it probable that the rule was inconsistent with the asylum statute, 94 Stat. 105, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1158. See §1158(b)(2)(C) (requiring that any regulation like the rule be“consistent”with the statute). Section 1158 generally provides that any noncitizen “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . may apply for asylum.” §1158(a)(1). And unlike the rule, the District Court explained, the statute provides narrow, carefully calibrated exceptions to asylum eligibility. As relevant here, Congress restricted asylum based on the possibility that a person could safely resettle in a third country. See §1158(a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A)(vi). The rule, by contrast, does not consider whether refugees were safe or resettled in Mexico—just whether they traveled through it. That blunt approach, according to the District Court, rewrote the statute. See 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 939– 947, 959.

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 3
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
Second, the District Court found that the challengers would likely prevail because the Government skirted typical rulemaking procedures. Id., at 947–951. The District Court noted “serious questions” about the rule’s validity because the Government effected a sea change in immigration law without first providing advance notice and opportunity for public comment. Id., at 930; see also 5 U. S. C. §553. The District Court found the Government’s purported justifications unpersuasive at the preliminary-injunction stage. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 948–951 (discussing statutory exceptions to notice-and-comment procedures).
Last, the District Court found the explanation for the rule so poorly reasoned that the Government’s action was likely arbitrary and capricious. See id., at 951–957; 5 U. S. C. §706. On this score, the District Court addressed the Government’s principal justifications for the rule: that failing to seek asylum while fleeing through more than one country “raises questions about the validity and urgency” of the asylum seeker’s claim, 84 Fed. Reg. 33839; and that Mexico, the last port of entry before the United States, offers a fea- sible alternative for persons seeking protection from persecution, id., at 33835, 33839–33840. The District Court examined the evidence in the administrative record and explained why it flatly refuted the Government’s assumptions. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 951–957. A “mountain of evidence points one way,” the District Court observed, yet the Government “went the other—with no explanation.” Id., at 955.
After the District Court issued the injunction, the Ninth Circuit declined the Government’s request for a complete stay, reasoning that the Government did not make the required “ ‘strong showing’ ” that it would likely succeed on the merits of each issue. ___ F. 3d ___ (2019), 2019 WL 3850928, *1 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). Narrowing the injunction to the Circuit’s borders, the Ninth Circuit expedited the appeal and permitted

4 BARR v. EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
the District Court to consider whether additional facts would warrant a broader injunction. 2019 WL 3850928, *2– *3.
The lower courts’ decisions warrant respect. A stay pending appeal is “extraordinary” relief. Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see also Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (listing stay factors). Given the District Court’s thorough analysis, and the serious questions that court raised, I do not believe the Government has carried its “especially heavy” burden. Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U. S. 1319, 1320 (1994) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). The rule here may be, as the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the asylum statute. It may also be arbitrary and capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in.
Setting aside the merits, the unusual history of this case also counsels against our intervention. This lawsuit has been proceeding on three tracks: In this Court, the parties have litigated the Government’s stay request. In the Ninth Circuit, the parties are briefing the Government’s appeal. And in the District Court, the parties recently participated in an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record. In- deed, just two days ago the District Court reinstated a na- tionwide injunction based on new facts. See East Bay Sanc- tuary Covenant v. Barr, No. 4:19–cv–4073, Doc. 73 (ND Cal., Sept. 9, 2019). Notably, the Government moved to stay the newest order in both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit. (Neither court has resolved that request, though the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to allow further deliberation.) This Court has not considered

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 5
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
the new evidence, nor does it pause for the lower courts to resolve the Government’s pending motions. By granting a stay, the Court simultaneously lags behind and jumps ahead of the courts below. And in doing so, the Court side-steps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government to implement a rule that bypassed the ordinary rulemaking process. I fear that the Court’s precipitous action today risks undermining the interbranch governmental processes that encourage deliberation, public participation, and transparency.
***
In sum, granting a stay pending appeal should be an “extraordinary” act. Williams, 442 U. S., at 1311. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively. See, e.g., Vladeck, The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket, 133 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming Nov. 2019). Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut the Government now invites. See Trump v. East Bay Sanc- tuary Covenant, 586 U. S. ___ (2018). I regret that my colleagues have not exercised the same restraint here. I respectfully dissent.

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

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent says it all, but, alas, in vain.

09-11-19 will be remembered as the day that justice, human rights, and human decency died in America!

Shame on Justices Breyer and Kagan for “going along to get along” with the dismantling of the Refugee Act of 1980. The “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands and the hands of their five colleagues.

The “Dred Scottification” (or “dehumanization”) of immigrants, Latinos, and other minorities that Justice Breyer once predicted, yet lacked the guts to speak out against in this case, is now in full swing. It will increase unabated, now that the Supremes’ sellout to authoritarian racism is assured. And don’t expect “Moscow Mitch” and his gang of toadies to put up any opposition.

The American justice system has been dismantled. But history will remember the roles of each of those “Black Robed Cowards” who participated in its demise.

With this atrocious decision, the Supremes have basically made themselves irrelevant to the battle for fairness and individual rights under the Constitution. As I have suggested before, self-created irrelevance might come back to haunt them.

PWS

09-11-19

SUPREMES HEAR ARGUMENTS ON LONG-TERM PRE-HEARING IMMIGRATION DETENTION! — JENNINGS V. RODRIGUEZ

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-debates-long-detentions-for-immigrants-facing-deportation/2017/10/03/a96a5300-a852-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

Ann E. Marimow reports for the Washington Post:

“The Supreme Court’s liberal justices dominated discussion Tuesday about the prolonged detention of immigrants facing deportation, expressing concern about the government holding noncitizens indefinitely without a hearing.

At issue for the court is whether immigrants slated for deportation have the right to a bail hearing and possible release after six months if they are not a flight risk and pose no danger to the public.

The conservative justices were less vocal but expressed skepticism about whether the court should be setting firm deadlines for hearings in immigration cases.

A lawyer for the Justice Department told the high court that noncitizens — whether documented or undocumented immigrants — have no constitutional right to be in the United States.

The justices were taking a second look at the issue after an evenly divided court could not reach a decision last term and scheduled the case for reargument. With Justice Neil M. Gorsuch having joined the bench since then, he could cast the deciding vote.

[‘It will be momentous’: Supreme Court embarks on new term]

The case reached the high court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that immigrants fighting deportation are entitled to bond hearings if they have been held for more than six months. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing a group of noncitizens held for more than a year without a hearing, told the Supreme Court that the outcome of the case will affect thousands of people held in jaillike detention centers.

The outcome takes on heightened significance as President Trump has vowed to broadly increase immigration enforcement across the United States. Immigration arrests are up sharply since he took office in January, but deportations are down this year, in part because of a significant drop in illegal crossings on the southern border with Mexico.

The Supreme Court has previously held that undocumented immigrants are entitled to some form of due process when contesting their detention but also that “brief” detentions were allowed. Courts have interpreted those rulings in different ways, with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, for instance, requiring more procedural safeguards for those who would be held for months or even years.

The court’s liberals on Tuesday pressed Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart about why immigrants in detention centers are treated differently than criminal defendants, who automatically receive hearings to determine whether they remain locked up pending trial.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that even a criminal suspect accused of “triple ax murders” is entitled to a bail hearing. “That to me is a little odd,” Breyer said, his voice rising.

Without time limits, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, noncitizens languish in detention centers, sometimes for years. “That’s lawlessness,” she said.

During the previous argument last term, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asserted that the constitutionality of the federal law was not at issue. But on Tuesday, he seemed more sympathetic to arguments in favor of a guaranteed timeline. He asked Stewart whether a lengthy delay because of a shortage of immigration judges was permissible and suggested that there should be a concretedeadline.

“Isn’t a bright line rule an easier way?” Kennedy asked.

Justice Elena Kagan followed up and asked whether a five-year backlog, for instance, was allowed. In response, Stewart said, an immigrant fighting deportation could always choose to return to his or her home country.

[Supreme Court considers whether those facing deportation can be held indefinitely]

The six-month deadline that the 9th Circuit set applies to a wide range of immigrants, from people detained after entering the United States for the first time to longtime legal residents. The case was brought by Alejandro Rodriguez, a lawful permanent resident who came to the country as an infant. The Department of Homeland Security started removal proceedings because of a conviction for drug possession and an earlier conviction for joyriding.

It can be done by Congress or by regulation, Alito said. But, he asked, “Where does it say six months in the Constitution?”

The case is Jennings v. Rodriguez.

Staff writers Maria Sacchetti and Robert Barnes contributed to this report.“

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

OK, let’s get to the heart of the disingenuous argument by the Solicitor General in behalf of DHS. A respondent is entitled to due process hearing before he or she can be removed from the United States. But, according to the Government, the respondent has no Constitutional right to be in the United States for that Constitutionally-required hearing. And, as we know, Immigration Courts have backlogs of over 600,000 cases, with hearings often taking four or more years to schedule.

The SG’s position doesn’t even pass then”straight face” test. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority of Justices won’t agree with it!

PWS

10-03-17

BREAKING: SUPREMES BODY SLAM DOJ IN NATZ CASE — MISREPRESENTATION MUST BE “MATERIAL” — Maslenjak v. United States — Total Justices Voting For DOJ Position = 0 (ZERO)!

Here’s the Court’s Syllabus (NOT part of the decision);

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 16–309. Argued April 26, 2017—Decided June 22, 2017

Petitioner Divna Maslenjak is an ethnic Serb who resided in Bosnia during the 1990’s, when a civil war divided the new country. In 1998, she and her family sought refugee status in the United States. In- terviewed under oath, Maslenjak explained that the family feared persecution from both sides of the national rift: Muslims would mis- treat them because of their ethnicity, and Serbs would abuse them because Maslenjak’s husband had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb Army by absconding to Serbia. Persuaded of the Maslenjaks’ plight, American officials granted them refugee status. Years later, Maslenjak applied for U. S. citizenship. In the application process, she swore that she had never given false information to a government of- ficial while applying for an immigration benefit or lied to an official to gain entry into the United States. She was naturalized as a U. S. cit- izen. But it soon emerged that her professions of honesty were false: Maslenjak had known all along that her husband spent the war years not secreted in Serbia, but serving as an officer in the Bosnian Serb Army.

The Government charged Maslenjak with knowingly “procur[ing], contrary to law, [her] naturalization,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1425(a). According to the Government’s theory, Maslenjak violated §1425(a) because, in the course of procuring her naturalization, she broke another law: 18 U. S. C. §1015(a), which prohibits knowingly making a false statement under oath in a naturalization proceeding. The District Court instructed the jury that, to secure a conviction un- der §1425(a), the Government need not prove that Maslenjak’s false statements were material to, or influenced, the decision to approve her citizenship application. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convic- tion, holding that if Maslenjak made false statements violating

2 MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES Syllabus

§1015(a) and procured naturalization, then she also violated §1425(a).

Held:
1. The text of §1425(a) makes clear that, to secure a conviction, the

Government must establish that the defendant’s illegal act played a role in her acquisition of citizenship. To “procure . . . naturalization” means to obtain it. And the adverbial phrase “contrary to law” speci- fies how a person must procure naturalization so as to run afoul of the statute: illegally. Thus, someone “procure[s], contrary to law, naturalization” when she obtains citizenship illegally. As ordinary usage demonstrates, the most natural understanding of that phrase is that the illegal act must have somehow contributed to the obtain- ing of citizenship. To get citizenship unlawfully is to get it through an unlawful means—and that is just to say that an illegality played some role in its acquisition.

The Government’s contrary view—that §1425(a) requires only a vi- olation in the course of procuring naturalization—falters on the way language naturally works. Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag. She has violated the law against possessing a weapon in a federal building, and she has done so in the course of procuring citizenship, but nobody would say she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law.” That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship in that example are merely coincidental: The one has no causal relation to the other. Although the Govern- ment attempts to define such examples out of the statute, that effort falls short for multiple reasons. Most important, the Government’s attempted carve-out does nothing to alter the linguistic understand- ing that gives force to the examples the Government would exclude. Under ordinary rules of language usage, §1425(a) demands a causal or means-end connection between a legal violation and naturaliza- tion.

The broader statutory context reinforces the point, because the Government’s reading would create a profound mismatch between the requirements for naturalization and those for denaturalization: Some legal violations that do not justify denying citizenship would nonetheless justify revoking it later. For example, lies told out of “embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy” (rather than “for the purpose of obtaining [immigration] benefits”) are not generally dis- qualifying under the statutory requirement of “good moral charac- ter.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 780; 8 U. S. C. §1101(f)(6). But under the Government’s reading of §1425(a), any lie told in the naturalization process would provide a basis for rescinding citizenship. The Government could thus take away on one day what

Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 3

Syllabus

it was required to give the day before. And by so unmooring the rev- ocation of citizenship from its award, the Government opens the door to a world of disquieting consequences—which this Court would need far stronger textual support to believe Congress intended. The stat- ute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturaliza- tion process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization. Pp. 4–9.

2. When the underlying illegality alleged in a §1425(a) prosecution is a false statement to government officials, a jury must decide whether the false statement so altered the naturalization process as to have influenced an award of citizenship. Because the entire naturalization process is set up to provide little room for subjective pref- erences or personal whims, that inquiry is properly framed in objec- tive terms: To decide whether a defendant acquired citizenship by means of a lie, a jury must evaluate how knowledge of the real facts would have affected a reasonable government official properly applying naturalization law.

If the facts the defendant misrepresented are themselves legally disqualifying for citizenship, the jury can make quick work of that inquiry. In such a case, the defendant’s lie must have played a role in her naturalization. But that is not the only time a jury can find that a defendant’s lies had the requisite bearing on a naturalization decision, because lies can also throw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts. When relying on such an investigation-based theory, the Government must make a two-part showing. Initially, the Government must prove that the misrepresented fact was suffi- ciently relevant to a naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, “seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications,” to undertake further investigation. Kungys, 485 U. S., at 774, n. 9. If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. The Government need not show definitively that its investiga- tion would have unearthed a disqualifying fact. It need only estab- lish that the investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification. Id., at 774. If that is so, the defendant’s mis- representation contributed to the citizenship award in the way §1425(a) requires. This demanding but still practicable causal standard reflects the real-world attributes of cases premised on what an unhindered investigation would have found.

When the Government can make its two-part showing, the defend- ant may overcome it by establishing that she was qualified for citizenship (even though she misrepresented facts that suggested the opposite). Thus, whatever the Government shows with respect to a

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES Syllabus

thwarted investigation, qualification for citizenship is a complete defense to a prosecution under §1425(a). Pp. 10–15.

3. Measured against this analysis, the jury instructions in this case were in error. The jury needed to find more than an unlawful false statement. However, it was not asked to—and so did not—make any of the necessary determinations. The Government’s assertion that any instructional error was harmless is left for resolution on remand. Pp. 15–16.

821 F. 3d 675, vacated and remanded.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

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

Interestingly, Justice Gorsuch, in his first immigration-related decision, wrote a separate concurring opinion agreeing with the majority that a misrepresentation must be “material” but indicating that he would not have gone on to attempt to articulate a test for “materiality.”

Doubt that the Government’s max-enforcement effort in the Federal Courts is out of touch with reality and the law? Try this: With a supposedly conservative majority Supreme Court, the Gov has lost two recent cases this one and Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions(http://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/05/31/led-by-justice-thomas-unanimous-supremes-reject-usgs-attempt-to-deport-mexican-man-for-consensual-sex-with-a-minor-strict-interpretation-carries-the-day/) by a total vote of 17-0. Yes, that’s right, 17-0! Not one Justice has sided with any of the nonsense that the Solicitor General has advanced on behalf of Government overreach on immigration enforcement. Justice Thomas even wrote the unanimous opinion in Esquivel (Justice Gorsuch sat that one out).

And, remember that these were positions developed and defended by the DOJ under the Obama Administration.

PWS

06-22-17

Law360: U.S. Solicitor General — Plum Or Lemon?

Andrew Strickler at Law 360 suggests that what was once Washington’s “best legal job” might now be a “career ender” rather than a “career enhancer.” Still, probably a far cry from being the Commissioner of the “Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service,” sometimes described as “the worst Presidential appointment in Government.”

Those of you who subscribe to Law 360 (I don’t, so all I read was the “teaser”) can read the full article here:

https://www.law360.com/articles/891376?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=articles_search

PWS

02/16/17

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ Of Government Begin!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Show (With Lives & Humanity On The Line) Never!

Related posts:

That’s where the “5 C’s” come into play: Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

At the same time, make an historical record of those judges who “stood small” in the face of Trump’s vicious and corrupt assault on our Constitution and our democratic institutions, not to mention the lives and well-being of vulnerable migrants!

Related posts:

09-11-19 will be remembered as the day that justice, human rights, and human decency died in America!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: