David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:
. . . .
“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”
In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.
Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.
The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.
“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.
Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.
Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.
Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.
Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.
Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.
On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.
In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.
Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.
An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.
“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.
Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.
In overturning the appeals court in a 9-0 ruling, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch began by noting that “at least 12 members of the 9th Circuit have objected to this judge-made rule.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.
The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.
At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.
The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.
The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
This confirms the importance of the Biden Administration getting more progressive voices on Federal Courts at all levels, including the Immigration Courts!
First, not all important cases go to the Supremes, and those that do often take years to get there and be resolved. In the meantime, the rulings of BIA and the Circuits are often the “final word.”
Even at the individual Immigration Judge level, only a small minority of cases are appealed. So the difference between progressive expert judges committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane practical interpretations and judges appointed because of a belief that they would “go along to get along” with DHS Enforcement is huge — basically life or death for many asylum seekers, other migrants, and their families (often U.S. citizens or LPRs).
Second, even where outvoted, progressive judges can often provide much more cogent, understandable, and practical alternatives to “knee jerk restrictionist/nativist” interpretations. Not only are these “better interpretations” often picked up and successfully argued and expanded by advocates, but they often expose shallow, specious reasoning by restrictionists and serve as “signposts to a better future” even if it sometimes takes years or even decades for the system to catch up. Also, dissents can prompt remedial legislation or needed oversight.
Indeed a number of the “Gang of Five” dissents from the “Schmidt-era BIA,” which basically cost us our jobs, still look very “spot on” decades later — particularly as Circuits continue to expose the intellectual dishonesty and corner-cutting sloppiness of far too many EOIR decisions in “life or death” matters!
Obviously, Trump McConnell and the right-wing activist organizations they parroted and enabled have had an immediate, large-scale, largely negative, effect on American Justice — from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts. It’s essential that the Biden Administration fight back with courageous, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars” at all levels of the Federal Judiciary. Judges with the guts and integrity to expose and push back against the stilted, often anti-democracy, far right agenda of too many of the Trump-McConnell appointees.
In this respect, creating a progressive “model judiciary” to supersede the godawful, dysfunctional mess at EOIR should be the “low hanging fruit.” In practical terms, it also will help reduce backlog, raise the level of Immigration Court practice, and hold DHS accountable to the rule of law. It should also be a model for what a better progressive Article III Judiciary could and should look like, all the way up to the Supremes!
🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever!
PWS
07-19-21