Attorney General Xavier Becerra – immigrationcourtside.com

CABINET: BIDEN WILL NAME DISTINGUISHED MEXICAN AMERICAN LAWYER ⚖️🇺🇸 XAVIER BECERRA, A STAUNCH OPPONENT OF THE WHITE NATIONALIST IMMIGRATION KAKISTOCRACY🏴‍☠️ AS CHOICE FOR HHS!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2020/12/biden-picks-california-atty-gen-becerra-for-health-and-human-services-secretary.html

Dean Kevin Johnson summarizes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

ImmigrationProf Blog

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, December 7, 2020

Biden picks California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services

By Immigration Prof

Share

Noam N. Levey, Eyan Halper, and Patrick McGreevy for the Los Angeles Times reported that President-elect Joe Biden has tapped California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be Health and Human Services secretary, which would make him the first Latino to hold the office. According to the story, Becerra “has become one of the most important defenders of the Affordable Care Act, leading the fight to preserve the landmark law against efforts by the Trump administration and conservative states to persuade federal courts to repeal it. . . . And he has become a leading champion of reproductive health, going to court repeatedly to challenge Trump administration efforts to scale back women’s access to abortion services and contraceptive coverage.”

Becerra’s mother was born in Jalisco, Mexico and immigrated to the United States after marrying his father, who was born in Sacramento and raised in Tijuana. Becerra’s father started out picking vegetables. “He got treated like he wasn’t a citizen,” Becerra recalled in 2017. “He couldn’t walk into restaurants because the sign said ‘No dogs or Mexicans allowed.’”

Elected to the House in 1992, he rose through the ranks to become the highest-ranking Latino in Congress at the time.

As Attorney General, Becerra has filed 100 challenges to Trump administration policies, including many immigration and immigrant-related ones such as the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, efforts to defund sanctuary cities, addition of a U.S. citizenship question to Census 2020, and more. Just last week Becerra won a challenge to President Trump’s public charge rule in the Ninth Circuit.

KJ

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

I personally would have preferred Becerra as Attorney General. The totally dysfunctional and demoralized DOJ, where “Justice” has been eradicated from the mission, urgently needs a progressive Hispanic leader. Someone who fully understands the overt racism of the nativist immigration policies implemented by Sessions and Barr and how they are connected to the regime’s larger White Nationalist agenda of denying equal justice under law to all persons of color in the U.S. Someone who will make cleaning up the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 the top priority!

Nevertheless, there is no denying the overriding importance of public health at the present moment. And, although he isn’t a medical professional, Becerra is a good administrator who understands the intimate connection between public health failures and racism in America. It’s no accident that the African American,Latino, and lower income communities have been disproportionately harmed by the regime’s criminally incompetent and malicious response to the COVID crisis.🤮☠️⚰️

Public health is just another aspect of social justice. And, social justice has been in abject failure in the Federal System for the past four years!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-07-20

Historical Footnote: Ah, Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day,!

That reminds me of yet another “Great Moment in EOIR History,” even before the “advent of the kakistocracy.” When the Arlington Immigration Court was also assigned to the Cleveland, Ohio Televideo docket, we filled all of the then-available hearing dates on our calendars. Our request to “HQ” in Falls Church to “open” the next year for scheduling was denied, apparently on the ground that it would make the docket charts look bad by being yet another year “out.”

So, we were advised by our Court Administrator to schedule all hearings for December 7, of the last “open” year until further notice. It didn’t take long for the Ohio Bar and the Assistant Chief Counsel to recognize that on any given Master Calendar thereafter, every hearing date assigned was Dec. 7, of the same year. As I used to tell them: “Hey, I’m just an Immigration Judge. I only work here, I’m not in charge of anything.”

Of course, hundreds of cases eventually had to be rescheduled to real dates! “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at its best!

Ironically, today’s Immigration Judges are even more feckless and powerless to manage the system than we were many years ago. Yet that didn’t stop the “GOP fraudsters” on the FLRA from illegally and dishonestly declaring them to be “management officials.” Talk about kakistocracy!

Management officials, my foot! I doubt today’s Immigration “Judges” can even schedule bathroom breaks without asking permission from the Falls Church Clown Show!🤡

👎THIEF-IN-CHIEF: TRUMP MISAPPROPRIATED MONEY TO BUILD WASTEFUL WALL — Symbol of Hate, Stupidity Built With Stolen Funds, Says 9th Circuit!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-says-trump-e2-80-99s-diversion-of-military-money-to-build-border-wall-was-illegal/ar-BB160TZy?ocid=bingoverlayon2

Wall Funding Illegal – Bing

By Bob Egelko

San Francisco Chronicle

Three days after President Trump took his re-election campaign to a construction site of his border wall in Arizona, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he had defied Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending by redirecting $2.5 billion in military funds to build 130 miles of barriers in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Congress appropriated the funds for military pay, weapons and other Defense Department purposes, and never authorized Trump to spend them on wall construction, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a pair of 2-1 rulings.“Funding for the wall had been denied by Congress,” and the Trump administration “lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds,” said Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, joined by Judge Kim Wardlaw. Both were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Daniel Collins, a Trump appointee, dissented from both decisions. He said the military funds were legally transferred and also that the plaintiffs — California and 15 other states, the Sierra Club and and an advocacy group for border communities — had no right to sue over the alleged violation of congressional spending powers.

Although the appeals court upheld a federal judge’s injunction against construction of the wall segments, the ruling did not halt construction. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last July to allow the work to continue while the case proceeded. Its brief, unsigned decision said the administration “has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action” — that is, that they had not shown direct harm from the construction that would entitle them to challenge it in court.

The appeals court majority reached a different conclusion, citing the plaintiffs’ claims that the wall was harming the environment and wildlife at the border and the states’ ability to enforce their own environmental laws. Similar issues are pending before the same panel in a case over $3.6 billion for additional wall segments, and the dispute could soon return to the high court.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

The Supreme’s majority appear to be in Trump’s pocket on this one. So, the fraud, waste, abuse, and mindless environmental destruction is likely to continue until we get regime change.

PWS

06-26-20

LITHWICK & STERN @ SLATE: Will California’s Appeal To Conservative Jurisprudence Convince Conservative Judges In Litigation Against Trump’s Fake National Emergency?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/california-lawsuit-trump-emergency-wall-conservative-gorsuch.html

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern write in Slate:

Last Friday, President Donald Trump declared a national state of emergency at the southern border, adding that it wasn’t one of those emergencies he actually “needed” to declare and then saying a bunch of other things. As he predicted, a coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit on Monday night, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration. As he also predicted, that suit was filed in federal district court in California.

What Trump did not predict—and probably could not, given his tenuous grasp on the legal limitations of executive authority—is that Monday’s lawsuit is, at bottom, extremely conservative. The suit does not appeal to the justices’ empathy for vulnerable immigrants or question whether Trump’s racist motives might undermine the declaration’s legality. Instead, it relies upon ancient principles of separation of powers to make a very strong case that Trump has short-circuited the Constitution. It is not a lawsuit about equality, or dignity, but about the nuts and bolts that undergird the constitutional lawmaking process. It is wonky, and formal, terse, and unromantic. And if the Supreme Court’s conservatives have any consistency, Monday’s lawsuit should persuade them to block Trump’s wall.

The 16 plaintiff states center their 57-page complaint around a basic argument: that the president has violated the cardinal principle of separation of powers by trammeling Congress’ will to achieve his policy preferences. Trump, the lawsuit alleges, “has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border.” There is “no objective basis” for this declaration, as Trump himself has essentially admitted. Further, “[t]he federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall,” and unauthorized entries are “near 45-year lows.”

Much of the complaint details funding that will be diverted from National Guard and drug-interception projects favored by the states in order to build the wall instead. The plaintiffs say that grants them standing to sue in federal court since the president is redirecting money that would benefit their interests to a project that will not. But the states aren’t simply upset because they would have preferred that the money be used for military construction and law enforcement. They are upset because, they allege, the money has been taken from these projects and from their citizens to be used illegally.

Trump, the plaintiff states write, has “violated the United States Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by taking executive action to fund a border wall for which Congress has refused to appropriate funding.” By “unilaterally diverting funding that Congress already appropriated for other purposes to fund a border wall for which Congress has provided no appropriations,” the president has run afoul of the Presentment Clause.

This lawsuit joins a series of others that have already been filed by watchdog groups. While they all argue that there is no actual emergency at the southern border, that is not the gravamen of their complaint. Instead of asking the courts to second-guess Trump’s intent, these challengers ask them to decide whether Trump had authority to act in the first place.

The answer, they assert, is no. The Presentment Clause is straightforward: For a bill to become law, it must pass both houses of Congress, then be presented to the president for approval. Yet Congress never passed a bill authorizing and funding the border wall Trump now demands. It never presented such legislation to the president for his signature. This is the stuff of Civics 101. Whatever powers the National Emergencies Act may grant to the president, a federal statute cannot override the Constitution. The executive cannot use funds Congress did not appropriate. He cannot amend statutes himself to create money for pet projects. Trump asked Congress for a large sum of money to construct a border wall; Congress resoundingly and provably said no. The National Emergencies Act does not give him leeway to contravene Congress’ commands.

These problems ought to be catnip for SCOTUS’ conservative justices—particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch. In his very first dissent on the Supreme Court, Gorsuch extolled the virtues of this pristine constitutional system. “If a statute needs repair,” he wrote, “there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.” Gorsuch continued:

To be sure, the demands of bicameralism and presentment are real and the process can be protracted. But the difficulty of making new laws isn’t some bug in the constitutional design: it’s the point of the design, the better to preserve liberty.

A year later, in his rightly celebrated opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya, Gorsuch hammered this same point home again. “Under the Constitution,” he wrote, “the adoption of new laws restricting liberty is supposed to be a hard business, the product of an open and public debate among a large and diverse number of elected representatives.” The courts abdicate their responsibility when they ignore the Constitution’s “division of duties” between the branches of government. These “structural worries” form the bedrock of American constitutional governance, whose ultimate goal is to safeguard “ordered liberty.” These new challenges demonstrate that Trump is circumventing these “structural worries” and harming “ordered liberty” in the process.

There’s also clear precedent for allowing states to take up this kind of challenge. When President Barack Obama tried to defer deportation for the undocumented parents of American citizens and legal residents, the Supreme Court’s conservatives threw a fit. They accused the president of legislating from the Oval Office and acting without congressional approval. And they succeeded in blocking that program after Texas and 25 other states sued based on an allegation of the flimsiest of hypothetical harms. In that case, Obama was merely executing a statute that allowed him to set “national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,” not building a border wall by fiat in defiance of congressional appropriators. If a president can violate the cardinal principle of separation of powers by stretching congressional guidance, and the states can sue him for it, surely he commits the same constitutional sin against those states by flouting congressional commands.

Litigants have learned well, after two long years of arguing over the travel ban, that the five conservatives have little to no interest in probing what lies in the president’s heart. They simply don’t care about what might or might not be a pretext, or whether tweets should count. They want clinical analysis of formal constitutional authority and presidential power. California v. Trump offers that up on a silver platter: Whatever the president can do—whether his name is Obama or Trump—he cannot take funds Congress refused to appropriate and use them to thwart the will of Congress. No tears, no drama, no probing of the executive’s soul. Just the cornerstone of the Framers’ plan.

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

The appeal to “conservative jurisprudence” certainly appeared to “score” with Circuit Judge Jay Bybee of the 9th Circuit and Chief Justice John Roberts in the recent East Bay Sanctuary case (asylum regulations). Can it bring over Justice Neil Gorsuch and others in California v. Trump?

On the other hand, Professor Aziz Huq, writing in Politico says the case is already over and Trump has won because of the Supremes’ prior “what me worry” tank job in Hawaii v. Trump, the so-called “Travel Ban 3.0 Case” which also involved a “Trumped up bogus national emergency” to fulfill a political campaign promise. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/19/trump-national-emergency-border-wall-225164

With due respect to Professor Huq, I think this case is different because Congress specifically considered Trump’s request and “reasoning” for wanting more “Wall money” and rejected it. Whether that difference “makes a difference,” in terms of result, remains to be seen. Stay tuned!

PWS

02-20-19

NOTE: An earlier version of this post misidentified the subject of the East Bay Sanctuary case — it was about the Trump Administration’s attempt to circumvent the asylum statute, NOT DACA, in which the Court has taken no action on the Government’s pending petition.

16 STATES SUE TRUMP ON BOGUS NATIONAL EMERGENCY — Nolan Says Trump Ultimately Likely To Prevail — “Slate 3” Appear To Agree!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coalition-of-states-sues-trump-over-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall/2019/02/18/9da8019c-33a8-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html

Amy Goldstein reports for WashPost:

A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors — except one, Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a San Francisco-based court whose judges have ruled against an array of other Trump administration policies, including on immigration and the environment.

Accusing the president of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme,” the suit says the states are trying “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”

. . . .

Read the rest of Amy’s article at the above link.

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

But, over at The Hill, Nolan Rappaport predicts that Trump ultimately will prevail:

Nolan writes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer claim that President Donald Trump’s Southern Border National Emergency Proclamation is an unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist, and that it steals from urgently needed defense funds — that it is a power grab by a disappointed president who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve through the constitutional legislative process.

In fact, this isn’t about the Constitution or the bounds of the law, and — in fact — there is a very real crisis at the border, though not necessarily what Trump often describes. It helps to understand a bit of the history of “national emergencies.”

As of 1973, congress had passed more than 470 statutes granting national emergency powers to the president. National emergency declarations under those statutes were rarely challenged in court.

n Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which was decided in 1952, the Supreme Court overturned President Harry S. Truman’s proclamation seizing privately owned steel mills to preempt a national steelworker strike during the Korean War. But Truman didn’t have congressional authority to declare a national emergency. He relied on inherent powers which were not spelled out in the Constitution.

Trump, however, is using specific statutory authority that congress created for the president.

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which permits the president to declare a national emergency when he considers it appropriate to do so. The NEA does not provide any specific emergency authorities. It relies on emergency authorities provided in other statutes. The declaration must specifically identify the authorities that it is activating.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430340-national-emergency-declaration-a-legal-fight-trump-is-likely-to-win

Published originally on The HIl.

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

While many of us hope Nolan is wrong, his prediction finds support from perhaps an odd source: these three articles from Slate:

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

By Daniel Hemel

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-trump-emergency-wall-fail.html

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

Trump Is Trying to Hollow Out the Constitutional System of Checks and Balances

The other two branches might let him.

By PETER M. SHANE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/national-emergency-tragedy-trump-wall.html

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

JURISPRUDENCE

Trump Isn’t Just Defying the Constitution. He’s Undermining SCOTUS.

The president defended his national emergency by boasting that he’ll win at the Supreme Court because it’s full of his judges.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/donald-trump-national-emergency-undermine-scotus-unconstitutional.html

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

We’ll see what happens. While the arguments made by Trump in support of his “Bogus National Emergency” were totally frivolous (and, perhaps, intentionally so), the points made by Rappaport, Hemel, Shane, and Lithwick aren’t. That could spell big trouble for our country’s future!

Trump doesn’t have a “sure fire legal winner” here; he might or might not have the majority of the Supremes “in his pocket” as he often arrogantly and disrespectfully claims. Nevertheless, there may be a better legal defense for the national emergency than his opponents had counted on.

Certainly, Trump is likely to benefit from having a “real lawyer,” AG Bill Barr, advancing his White Nationalist agenda at the “Justice” Department rather than the transparently biased and incompetent Sessions. While Barr might be “Sessions at heart,” unlike Sessions he certainly had the high-level professional legal skills, respect, and the “human face” necessary to prosper in the Big Law/Corporate world for decades.

Big Law/Corporate America isn’t necessarily the most diverse place, even today. Nevertheless, during my 7-year tenure there decades ago I saw that overt racism and xenophobia generally were frowned upon as being “bad for business.” That’s particularly true if the “business” included representing some of the largest multinational corporations in the world.

Who knows, Barr might even choose to advance the Trump agenda without explicitly ordering the DOJ to use the demeaning, and dehumanizing term “illegals” to refer to fellow human beings, many of them actually here with Government permission, seeking to attain legal status, and often to save their own lives and those of family members, through our legal system.

Many of them perform relatively thankless, yet essential, jobs that are key to our national economic success. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that like the Trump Family and recently exposed former U.N Ambassador nominee Heather Nauert, almost all of us privileged and lucky enough to be U.S. citizens who have prospered from an expanding economy have been doing so on the backs of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Additionally, migrants are some of the dwindling number of individuals in our country who actually believe in and trust the system to be fair and “do the right thing.”

But, a change in tone, even if welcome, should never be confused with a change in policy or actually respecting the due process rights of others and the rule of law as applied to those seeking legally available benefits in our immigration system. That’s just not part of the White Nationalist agenda that Barr so eagerly signed up to defend and advance

It’s likely to a long time, if ever, before “justice” reasserts itself in the mission of the Department of Justice.

PWS

02-19-19

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

JUSTICE GORSUCH EXPRESSES SOME SKEPTICISM ABOUT GOV’S UNLIMITED POWER IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION CASE!

6https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-dhs-immigrant-detention

Chris Geidner reports for BuzzFeed News:

In a case that the ACLU says could affect thousands of immigrants, the Supreme Court on Wednesday considered when the government has the right to detain a class of immigrants without a bail hearing.

Under a 1996 law, the federal government is allowed to detain immigrants whose criminal conviction or involvement in terrorism-related activities would make them inadmissible or deportable. The law says the government “shall” take any of those immigrants into custody “when the alien is released” from criminal custody. The question before the justices is: What happens if the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t do so immediately?

The arguments on Wednesday focused on the technicalities of the 1996 law, rules of grammar, and timelines — not the sort of fiery rhetoric usually favored by President Donald Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions when talking about immigrants.

And while the case was granted to resolve the question of whether the statute still applied if DHS does not act immediately — whether there is any time restriction — the arguments shifted to a question of what limitation would be reasonable.

After a back-and-forth with Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a question from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke up early in the Wednesday arguments, asking, “[D]oes the government have any view about if ever the obligation [to take an immigrant into custody] lapses? Could it be 30 years? … Thirty years, and the government was aware of him the entire time and chose not to act. … Is there any limit on the government’s power?”

The government lawyer, Zachary Tripp from the Solicitor General’s Office, said the law created “a continuing obligation” that “does not lapse.”

Later, when Justice Stephen Breyer raised a similar question and Tripp began answering about when certain underlying crimes would be covered under the detention provision, Gorsuch interjected, said that back-and-forth was “quibbling,” and redirected Tripp to the larger question: “Justice Breyer’s question is my question, and I really wish you’d answer it.”

Breyer then stated his question more directly: “Is the government’s position that this paragraph, which says shall be arrested upon release, applies to a person who has been released 50 years before?”

Tripp, not giving in at all, said the government’s position is “absolutely that this applies regardless of the time” that’s passed.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I had predicted the possibility that Justice Gorsuch’s past jurisprudence questioning the extent of and deference to Executive Power could make him an “honest broker” in some immigration cases.

I’d like to believe Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony that he will approach cases in a fair and impartial manner. But, neither his partisan outburst during his conformation nor his fawning performance during the unnecessary “formal swearing in” that became a Trump campaign rally were very encouraging from a fairness and impartiality standpoint.

Both his reputation and the country would be better served if he filled the “open minded conservative” role played by his predecessor and mentor Justice Kennedy rather than the “bought and paid for partisan vote” that all the Senators and Trump expect him to be.

Indeed, the one unifying theme of the Senate confirmation process was that all believed that he would perform as a totally predictable right-wing partisan vote. If he doesn’t live up to this expectation, the Dems will be (pleasantly) shocked and the GOP outraged at his “betrayal.” That’s why he would do well to at least occasionally listen carefully to the analysis of some of his more “liberal leaning” colleagues.

Here’s the full transcript of the oral argument courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/16-1363_h315.pdf

PWS

10-11-18

GONZO’S WORLD: SCOFFLAW SCHEME STIFFING SANCTUARY STATES SOUNDLY SLAMMED!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/410149-california-judge-rules-against-sessionss-effort-to-hit-sanctuary

writes in The Hill:

A federal district court judge has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ conditions on grant funding to force so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts as unconstitutional

Judge William Orrick, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sided with the state of California and city of San Francisco in their lawsuit challenging the requirements in granting their request for summary judgment Friday.

The conditions Sessions set in 2017 require sanctuary cities to give immigration officials access to their jails, notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials of the planned release of a detainee, and follow a law that prohibits state and local governments from restricting how much information is shared with the Department of Homeland Security.

Orrick’s decision was in agreement with every court that has looked at these issues.

The judge said that the challenged conditions violate the separation of power and that the information-sharing law is unconstitutional.

Orrick said he is following the lead of the district court in a similar challenge brought by the city of Chicago and is issuing a nationwide injunction to block the Justice Department from enforcing its requirement and the law. But he said he is putting that stay on hold until the Ninth Circuit addresses the issue on appeal.

“Today’s ruling is a victory in our fight to protect the people of California,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday afternoon.

“We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s attempts to force our law enforcement into changing its policies and practices in ways that that would make us less safe.”

Becerra’s office noted that the ruling marks the attorney general’s twenty-second legal victory against the Trump administration.

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

When will he ever learn, when will he ever learn? And, how much of our tax money and Federal Court time will he waste with this counterproductive, semi-frivolous, and vindictive litigation.

Given Gonzo’s record of disregarding the law and mocking common sense, California might “top the century mark” in legal wins before the end of this Administration!

PWS

10-07-18

BREAKING: SCOFFLAW MONDAY – FEDERAL JUDGES CONTINUE TO BLAST THE TRUMP/SESSIONS LAWLESS APPROACH TO IMMIGRATION! –“procedurally improper and wholly without merit.” — “[T]he Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/federal-judge-trump-administration-detaining-children/index.html

Laura Jarrett reports for CNN:

(CNN)A federal judge in California on Monday flatly rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to modify a decades-old settlement agreement that limits the length of time and conditions under which US officials may detain immigrant children.

The Justice Department had asked US District Judge Dolly Gee to modify what’s known as the Flores settlement to give the Trump administration maximum flexibility to detain families not only until their criminal proceedings conclude, but also through the end of any asylum proceedings, which could drag on for many months.

In a strongly worded order, Gee added that there was no basis for the change, calling it “procedurally improper and wholly without merit.”

“It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying well-established principles of law.

“Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount,” Gee wrote.

Gee said that “absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion.”

CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

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

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/396210-judge-dismisses-most-of-trump-administration-lawsuit-over-california

Max Greenwood reports for The Hill:

A federal judge on Monday dismissed most of the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking to knock down a series of California immigration laws, delivering a major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to crack down on so-called sanctuary states.

U.S. District Judge John Mendez tossed out the part of the lawsuit seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation between local and state law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. He also dismissed an effort to block another law — Assembly Bill 103 — which allows the California attorney general to review and report on immigrant detention facilities.

Mendez also tossed out part of the lawsuit against Assembly Bill 405, which sought to limit private employers’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Mendez’s dismissals mean that California will be able to continue limiting its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In dismissing the Justice Department’s case against the two laws, Mendez rejected the Trump administration’s argument that only the federal government has the final say on immigration enforcement and regulation under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

“[T]he Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders,” Mendez wrote.

The dismissals came days after Mendez rejected the Trump administration’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the laws while the case played out in court.

The Justice Department first brought the lawsuit against California in March, arguing that the sanctuary laws effectively hindered federal efforts to enforce immigration policies.

But Mendez rejected that argument, writing in his rejection of the Trump administration’s injunction request last week that “refusing to help is not the same as impeding.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office is charged with defending the state against the lawsuit, celebrated the dismissals on Monday, saying that it upheld California’s right to determine how best to protect its residents’ privacy and security.

“Today’s decision is a victory for our State’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all of our people,” he said in a statement. “Though the Trump Administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

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

My question: When are Federal Judges going to start holding Sessions and his ethically challenged gang of scofflaw lawyers from the DOJ in contempt and referring them for bar disciplinary proceedings for continuously abusing their offices by burdening the Federal Courts with meritless, largely frivolous litigation? Even worse, the litigation is driven by racism — an inherently objectionable basis!

PWS

07-09-18

TAL @ CNN: Administration’s Plan To Request Citizenship Information In Census Provokes New Litigation!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/census-commerce-department-immigration-california/index.html

California sues over Census citizenship question

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Progressives, states and civil rights advocates are preparing a flurry of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the next census, saying the move will penalize immigrants and threaten civil rights.

The late Monday move from the Commerce Department, which it said came in response a request by the Justice Department, would restore a question about citizenship that has not appeared on the census since the 1950s. The administration said the data was necessary to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The state of California immediately challenged the plan in federal court.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla trashed the move as anti-immigrant.

“The citizenship question is the latest attempt by President Trump to stoke the fires of anti-immigrant hostility,” Padilla said in a statement. “Now, in one fell swoop, the US Commerce Department has ignored its own protocols and years of preparation in a concerted effort to suppress a fair and accurate census count from our diverse communities. The administration’s claim that it is simply seeking to protect voting rights is not only laughable, but contemptible.”

Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder also blasted the move and said his organization, which focuses on voting enfranchisement and redistricting, would also pursue litigation against what he called an “irresponsible decision.”

Holder said contrary to the rationale presented by the Justice Department, Holder said he and other modern-era attorneys general were “perfectly” able to handle those legal matters without such a question on the Census.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” Holder said in a statement. “Make no mistake — this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.”

Critics of the move say that including such a question on a government survey will scare non-citizens and vulnerable immigrant communities into under-reporting. By undercounting these populations, they argue, there will be a major impact that follows on voting and federal funds.

Because the once-a-decade census is used to determine congressional and political districts and to dole out federal resources, an undercount in heavily immigrant areas could substantially impact certain states and major cities and potentially their representation at the federal level.

The question has not been on the full census since the 1950s, but does appear on the yearly American Community Survey administered by the Census Bureau to give a fuller picture of life in America and the population.

The Commerce Department said the decision came after a “thorough review” of the request from the Justice Department. The priority, Commerce said, was “obtaining complete and accurate data.”

“Having citizenship data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the VRA, and Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” the statement said.

Becerra and his state have been central to virtually every legal challenge of the Trump administration on issues ranging from immigration, to the environment, to health care. The Justice Department has also sued California over its so-called sanctuary policies to protect immigrants.

More challenges could soon follow.

Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, a nonprofit that works on issues of justice and civil rights, said the question had no place in the Census.

“Our Constitution requires a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the country, no matter her or his citizenship status. The administration’s decision to add a citizenship question is at best a dramatic misstep, and at worst a politically-motivated move that will undermine a fair and accurate census,” Weiser said. “This question is a dangerous move that could lead to a serious skewing of the final census results, which would have a deleterious effect on our system of representative democracy. We urge the administration to reconsider.”

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

The idea that the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions wants this information to enforce the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) is preposterous on its face! So far, the only interest that Sessions and his crew at the DOJ have shown in the VRA is to insure that White GOP voters are enfranchised and that African-Americans and other minorities are disenfranchised.

Because all individuals in a congressional district are entitled to representation, regardless of citizenship status or other legal status, promoting an undercount (which is what the Administration obviously intends) will work to the disadvantage of those districts with large populations of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

Stay tuned. There probably are many more similar suits to come, and “Tal is on the ball” to keep us completely informed.

PWS

03-27-18

GONZO’S WORLD: ICE SPOKESMAN QUITS AFTER BEING ORDERED TO LIE IN SUPPORT OF SESSIONS/HOMAN FALSE NARRATIVE ON IMMIGRANTS & CRIME — “I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts!”

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

James Hohmann reports in the Washington Post “Daily 202:”

Jeff Sessions attacked Oakland’s mayor in a speech last week in Sacramento. An ICE spokesman has resigned over what he says were false statements by the attorney general. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

— “The San Francisco spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resigned over what he described as ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ statements made by top-ranking officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and ICE Acting Director Thomas D. Homan,”Meagan Flynn reports. “The now-former spokesman, James Schwab, told news outlets late Monday that his resignation stemmed from statements by Homan and Sessions that potentially hundreds of ‘criminal aliens’ evaded ICE during a Northern California raid in February because Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned the immigrant community in advance. Schwab said he pushed back on that characterization — but said ICE instructed him to ‘deflect’ questions from the press.”

“I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit. … I didn’t feel like fabricating the truth to defend ourselves against her actions was the way to go about it.”

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

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

It’s not like James Schwab and James Hohmann are the only ones calling out Trump & Sessions for their consistent lies and misrepresentations about immigration. As reported by the always amazing Tal Kopan @ CNN last week, California Governor Jerry Brown essentially issued the same warning that you can’t believe much of anything that comes out of our Attorney General’s mouth:

“California Gov. Jerry Brown fired back at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump on Wednesday after their lawsuit challenging the state’s immigration laws, calling the administration “full of liars” and repeatedly referencing the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Jeff Sessions takes immigration fight to California, announces lawsuit

The Democratic governor was speaking on the heels of Sessions’ visit to Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against California for its so-called sanctuary policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In slamming Sessions’ appearance as a “political stunt” that was full of “lies” and untruths, Brown needled Sessions personally and his relationship with the President, which is famously fraught.

“I do think this is pure red meat for the base, and I would assume — this is pure speculation — that Jeff thinks Donald will be happier with him and I bet Donald will be tweeting his joy with this stunt,” Brown said.”

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

You can read both Hohmann’s and Tal’s complete articles at the links.

Sadly, the Trump Administration as a whole, and Jeff Sessions in particular, have made lies, misrepresentations, and knowingly false narratives a staple of their tortured and often illegal immigration policies. I think that, rather than “biased Federal Judges” as disingenuously claimed by Sessions, has led to an impressive string of losses for the Administration and the DOJ in the lower Federal Courts on immigration issues.

I predict that the losing has just begun. If and when Sessions follows through on his apparent plan to destroy the U.S. Immigration Court System, literally thousands of cases are likely to be sent back or permanently blocked by legal rulings in the Circuit Courts.

Although Sessions arrogantly claims that a majority of the Supremes are “in the Administration’s pocket” and therefore can be counted on to overrule the Circuits, fact is that the Supremes can’t and won’t take every big immigration case the Government loses. So, Trump and Sessions better get used to “living with defeat.” It’s going to become a way of life, as our immigration and justice systems deteriorate under this Administration’s toxic leadership.

PWS

03-14-18

NOLAN @ THE HILL: IF CA WINS “SANCTUARY CASE” THEY MIGHT REGRET IT — The Wrath & Vengeance Of Trump, Sessions, & DHS Could Be Devastating To Communities & Undocumented Populations!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/377605-even-without-trumps-lawsuit-california-may-have-to-abandon-sanctuary

This case is very risky for Trump. He is likely to lose in the Ninth Circuit, and it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court would handle this federal vs. state rights issue. Immigration experts on both sides say this lawsuit takes the sanctuary-cities debate into uncharted territory.

The only certainty is that a loss would clear the way for the enactment of more sanctuary laws in California and other states.

Ironically, California’s sanctuary policies make it easier for ICE to find undocumented aliens.

Instead of being spread out across the United States, a quarter of the nation’s undocumented aliens are living in California. California’s labor force has 1.75 million undocumented aliens. Nearly 10 percent of its workers are undocumented aliens. And in 2014, more undocumented aliens lived in Los Angeles County, Calif., than in any other county in the United States.

This would make it easy for Trump to carry out a successful, large-scale enforcement campaign in California to arrest undocumented aliens and impose sanctions on the businesses that employ them, which is likely to be his next step if the lawsuit fails.

California could end up having to abandon its sanctuary policies to protect its undocumented population.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.

Putting together Nolan’s analysis with that of Professor Peter Markowitz in the preceding article, one can conclude that both sides are likely to come out losers in this contest. We’ll see.

PWS

03-10-18

PETER MARKOWITZ IN THE NYT: CA Can Thank The Late Justice Scalia For Likely Win On Sanctuary Case!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opinion/trump-california-sanctuary-movement.html

The Justice Department lawsuit emphasizes that immigration is a federal matter, that we must have a uniform scheme to oversee it and that this scheme is being undermined by sanctuary laws. In most states, federal immigration authorities are able to leverage state and local criminal justice systems. The Justice Department is arguing that California’s refusal to participate requires it to adapt and employ different enforcement strategies.
It is fair to ask whether states should have the power to abstain from federal law enforcement programs that they view as immoral or adverse to their local interests. It is not, however, a new question.
In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.
Attorney General Sessions’s attempt to spin his attack on sanctuary laws as a logical extension of the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision is a transparent attempt to sidestep the clear rule established in Printz.
As California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, recently explained, “California is in the business of public safety, not in the business of deportations.” By exercising their constitutional right to stay out of the business of deportation, California and other sanctuary jurisdictions have been able to strengthen ties between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. Those ties, in turn, mean that immigrant witnesses and victims of crime are not fearful of coming forward to assist the local police. That is why a recent report by the Center for American Progress demonstrated that, contrary to Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions’s heated rhetoric, sanctuary laws improve public safety by driving down overall crime rates.
This is precisely the type of legitimate justification for local abstention that the Supreme Court established as a bedrock principle of our federal system of government over two decades ago.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

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

Interesting point. Strange bedfellows. Read the rest of Professor Markowitz’s article at the link.

PWS

03-10-18

APOCALYPTO NOW! — CAL TO GONZO: “BRING IT ON, BABY!”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/defaul t.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

From the LA Times Editorial Board:

Jeff Sessions vs. California
Ironically, the attorney general’s lawsuit could help dispel myths about ‘sanctuary state’ laws.
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions warned California on Wednesday that “there is no secession” from federal jurisdiction as he appeared before members of the California Peace Officers Assn. in Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against three so-called sanctuary state laws. His claims drew immediate rebukes from state officials, with Gov. Jerry Brown’s initial response after the suit was filed late Tuesday standing as one of the better jabs: “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!” He followed it at a news conference with another shot at Sessions, a former U.S. senator: “A fellow from Alabama talking to us about secession?” Grab the popcorn; this could get interesting.

Oddly, we (sort of) welcome the Trump administration’s legal challenge in hopes that it will clarify not just for state officials but for the federal government where the lines of responsibility and culpability might lie. We suspect the courts will side with California on most if not all of the legal issues Session’s lawsuit raises, and in the process could underscore the reality that California’s menu of state and local laws limiting involvement with federal immigration enforcement do not offer anyone anything remotely like sanctuary.

Just consider the statistics provided in its lawsuit. Last year, 14% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests occurred in California. So far this year, the state accounts for 13% of the national total. So the laws at issue don’t seem to have done much to hinder enforcement here.

The federal challenge hinges on the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” which says federal laws take precedence over state laws. That’s true, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can dragoon state authorities into enforcing federal statutes. Similarly, states should not craft laws on immigration policy — that’s a federal responsibility — and should not undermine the federal government as it enforces its own immigration codes. But the state laws at issue here do not set immigration policy. As the news website Vox points out, the federal lawsuit isn’t really about restoring ICE’s abilities, “but rather about making it easier for the agency to do its job.” California isn’t stopping federal enforcement (a recent series of raids up and down the state are proof of that); it is saying that it won’t help.

That’s more than just a legitimate position — it’s one that local law enforcement officials insist is better for public safety. There’s research to back them up, too. When local communities view police, who are responsible for enforcing criminal laws and protecting public safety, as immigration enforcers in a different uniform, fewer crimes get reported and fewer witnesses come forward. That undermines community safety and the criminal justice system.

Do some specific elements of the state laws at issue cross the line from non-involvement to impediment? That’s a good question for the courts. One of the laws tells businesses that they can’t voluntarily cooperate with immigration agents, which could be an overstep — what right does a state have to tell a private business when it can and can’t offer information to federal officials? But another law targeted by Sessions helps the state carry out its duty to ensure the safety of public facilities. That measure establishes a state inspection regimen of facilities with which the federal government contracts to house detainees. The vast majority of those, including the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County, are owned and operated by private corporations, and the state has a responsibility to make certain such facilities meet state health and safety codes even if the sole customer is the federal government.

What this lawsuit really is about is politics. California political leaders have persistently challenged a wide range of Trump administration policies. Brown is the main figure in a global coalition of sub-national governments seeking to meet global-warming emissions under the Paris Agreement that Trump is walking away from. State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has sued the administration over the suspension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the travel ban, a Trump rule allowing more employers to stop offering insurance coverage for birth control, and on and on.

For the administration, liberal and ethnically diverse California is the America its political supporters hate, and this lawsuit is another front in our ongoing culture wars. So as state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León tweeted, “bring it on.” Clarifying these lines of responsibility just might do everyone some good.

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

Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions might wish he hadn’t started this civil war. California doesn’t have much to lose by defending its laws. But, Gonzo could see all or part of his attack on American communities go down in flames!

As this editorial suggests, it’s probably time to have this fought out in court, rather than in the battle of words and insults.

On the other hand, at a time when the country is faced with many other real problems, this kind of unnecessary fight picked by Sessions on behalf of Trump and the White Nationalists seems like a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. But, wasting the taxpayers’ money while lining the pockets of the rich is one of the hallmarks of the Trump Administration.

PWS

03-08-18

GONZO’S WORLD: WHILE PUTIN DISMANTLES US DEMOCRACY, GONZO ATTACKS CAL. – Gov. Brown Calls DOJ Suit “Political Stunt!”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-sanctuary-cities-suit_us_5a9ec5a4e4b0e9381c12c0e8

Elise Foley reports for HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will ramp up its fight against so-called “sanctuary” policies by filing a lawsuit on Tuesday against the state of California over its laws meant to protect undocumented immigrants.

The lawsuit, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions will formally announce on Wednesday, is the latest in a string of moves by the White House, Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to combat local efforts to limit police cooperation with deportation. Thus far, this has largely involved condemnations and threats, including the withholding of federal funds and prosecuting public officials.

Now, the administration is seeking to block three California laws by arguing that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions is expected to tell law enforcement officers during a speech on Wednesday, according to prepared remarks. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

To make its case, the DOJ is in part pointing to a ruling on a very different state-level immigration law: Arizona’s SB 1070, which was meant to expand local police efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration by striking down major provisions of that law in 2012.

The Trump administration plans to argue that California is similarly overstepping its authority, senior DOJ officials said Tuesday. The lawsuit will challenge three laws that DOJ officials say hurt the government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement.

Supporters of the California laws and “sanctuary” policies in general argue that they make communities safer by allowing local police to work better with immigrant communities and focus time and resources on duties other than immigration matters. (“Sanctuary” policies differ widely from place to place and there is no set definition for the term.)

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) responded to Sessions’ suit Tuesday evening, calling it a “political stunt.”

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” he said in a statement. “Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

. . . .

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

Read Elise’s full article at the above link.

So far, Gonzo hasn’t had much luck on his anti-Sanctuary Cities campaign. But, sooner or later, if he keeps filing suits, he’ll probably get a Federal Judge who agrees with at least part of his position.

The suit has little if anything to do with effective law enforcement and everything to do with right-wing politics. Strangely, for one who is so disdainful of lawyers and their functions in society, Gonzo’s regime has been essentially a “full employment for lawyers” boon. And, of course, “Chuckie” Cooper is on Gonzo’s personal retainer, trying, so far successfully, to keep him out of jail in the Russia investigation.

PWS

03-07-18

TAL @ CNN: ADMINISTRATION “SPLITS A PAIR” OF USDC RULINGS IN CAL. – Blown Out Again On DACA, But A Victory On “The Wall!”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/daca-revocation-ruling/index.html

Court hands DACA recipients another victory

By: Catherine E. Shoichet and Tal Kopan, CNN

Young immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children have won another legal victory.

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that the government can’t revoke DACA recipients’ work permits or other protections without giving them notice and a chance to defend themselves.

The ruling in a California district court marks the third time a lower court has ruled against the administration’s handling of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But this case, unlike the others, is not about President Donald Trump’s September decision to end the program.

US District Judge Philip Gutierrez’s preliminary injunction Monday addressed another aspect: government decisions to revoke protections from individual DACA recipients.

The Obama-era DACA program protected young immigrants brought illegally to the United States from deportation if they met certain criteria, paid fees, passed background checks and didn’t commit serious crimes.

The Trump administration announced it was ending the program last year, arguing that it was unconstitutional. A series of recent lower court rulings have thwarted that effort, requiring the government to continue renewing permits under the program while legal challenges make their way through the courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court said it was staying out of the dispute for now.

Meanwhile, activists across the country have increasingly criticized government decisions to end DACA protections in individual cases.

Monday’s ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit argues that the government had revoked protections from DACA recipients who hadn’t been convicted of serious crimes without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves.

An example: Officials revoked the work permit of one of the plaintiffs, Jesus Arreola, after he was arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling. An immigration judge later found that allegation wasn’t credible, according to the ACLU’s complaint. Arreola says he was an Uber and Lyft driver who had picked up passengers for a friend without any knowledge of their immigration status.

Attorneys representing the government argue that the plaintiffs had “misused the trust given to them with the administrative grace of DACA.”

The judge said the Department of Homeland Security must restore protections to the group of DACA recipients who had them revoked “without notice, a reasoned explanation, or any opportunity to respond.”

The ruling also temporarily blocks officials from revoking DACA protections from others without following a procedure “which includes, at a minimum, notice, a reasoned explanation, and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Monday’s ruling.

According to DHS, officials had revoked or terminated 2,139 individuals’ DACA protections over the lifetime of the program as of August 2017.

The ruling came the same day the Supreme Court said it would stay out of the dispute over the termination of DACA for now, leaving renewals under the program in place for at least months.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/border-wall-ruling-curiel/index.html

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

(CNN)US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has cleared one potential obstacle to President Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall, ruling Tuesday that the administration has the authority to waive a host of environmental laws and other regulations to begin construction.

Curiel’s 100-page order does not mean construction of the wall will begin immediately. Congress has yet to authorize or provide funding for any new wall to begin the project. Thus far, the Department of Homeland Security has built several prototypes in San Diego — which was the focus of the lawsuit Curiel rejected.

Still, the ruling is a win for the administration as it seeks to get money to build its wall, a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign.

Curiel’s ruling left little doubt that the DHS has broad authority to issue waivers — authorized in a cluster of laws passed by Congress in the mid 1990s to 2000s — to expedite the construction of border barriers and infrastructure. His lengthy ruling went point-by-point through the challenges to DHS’ authority brought by environmental groups and the state of California and rejected all of them.

Judge criticized by Trump will hear case on border wall

Curiel was famously the target of Trump’s ire when he presided over a lawsuit against Trump University, which was ultimately settled after Trump won the White House.

Trump drew fierce criticism in June 2016 when he said that Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him due to his Mexican heritage.

In his ruling Tuesday, Curiel noted that the border wall is a highly contentious issue under this administration but said he did not factor that into his decision.

“The court is aware that the subject of these lawsuits, border barriers, is currently the subject of heated political debate in and between the United States and the Republic of Mexico as to the need, efficacy and the source of funding for such barriers,” Curiel wrote. “In its review of this case, the Court cannot and does not consider whether underlying decisions to construct the border barriers are politically wise or prudent.”

Not just Trump’s idea: A short history on famous walls and the environment

The groups had challenged DHS’ move to expedite construction of the prototypes and replacement fencing in San Diego on a number of grounds. The collection of lawsuits from the environmental advocacy organizations and the state of California argued that the Trump administration’s waiver wasn’t allowed by the law that created the overarching authority and that the authority itself violated the Constitution.

Curiel rejected each argument, saying the law and the nature of the border clearly give the DHS broad authority to build border barriers.

“Both Congress and the Executive share responsibilities in protecting the country from terrorists and contraband illegally entering at the borders. Border barriers, roads, and detection equipment help provide a measure of deterrence against illegal entries,” Curiel wrote. “With section 102, Congress delegated to its executive counterpart, the responsibility to construct border barriers as needed in areas of high illegal entry to detect and deter illegal entries. In an increasingly complex and changing world, this delegation avoids the need for Congress to pass a new law to authorize the construction of every border project.”

In addition to pro-immigration and civil liberties groups, environmental groups have opposed the construction of Trump’s border wall on the grounds that it would disturb sensitive wildlife and ecosystems.

One section of Trump’s proposed wall in Texas would run through a wildlife preserve.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, hailed the ruling.

“Border security is paramount to stemming the flow of illegal immigration that contributes to rising violent crime and to the drug crisis, and undermines national security,” said spokesman Devin O’Malley. “We are pleased DHS can continue this important work vital to our nation’s interests.”

One of the groups challenging the wall said it intended to appeal the decision.

“We intend to appeal this disappointing ruling, which would allow Trump to shrug off crucial environmental laws that protect people and wildlife,” said Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Trump administration has completely overreached its authority in its rush to build this destructive, senseless wall.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that he was considering his options.

“We remain unwavering in our belief that the Trump Administration is ignoring laws it doesn’t like in order to resuscitate a campaign talking point of building a wall on our southern border,” Becerra said. “We will evaluate all of our options and are prepared to do what is necessary to protect our people, our values, and our economy from federal overreach. A medieval wall along the US-Mexico border simply does not belong in the 21st century.”

The waiver authority to build barriers along the border has been used a number of times dating back to the George W. Bush administration, and it has been upheld by the courts every time it has been challenged.

Trump is scheduled to visit the border wall prototypes next month.

CNN’s Sara Sidner and Devan Cole contributed to this report.

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

I guess even Gonzo can’t lose ’em all. But, he certainly hasn’t taken his last beating on his counterproductive, ill-conceived, and wasteful “War on Dreamers.”

PWS

02-28-18

GONZO’S WORLD: “APOCALYPTO” REVS UP “NEW CIVIL WAR ON AMERICA” WITH RENEWED ATTACK ON LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT — 10th Amendment, Consistent Court Losses, & Common Sense Fail To Deter Scofflaw A.G. — “[T]here is irony in Sessions threatening to withhold law enforcement grants in the name of fighting crime.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-threatens-to-subpoena-records-in-escalating-battle-with-sanctuary-jurisdictions/2018/01/24/984d0fee-0113-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html

Matt Zapotosky reports for the Washington Post:

“The Justice Department on Wednesday escalated its attempt to crack down on so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, threatening to subpoena 23 states, cities and other localities that have policies the department suspects might be unlawfully interfering with immigration enforcement.

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have long promised to target places with policies friendly to those in the country illegally — warning they might withhold federal money from some and trying to tie grant eligibility to cooperation with federal authorities on immigration matters. The Justice Department had previously contacted the 23 jurisdictions threatened Wednesday, raising worries they might be in violation of a federal law barring places from enacting policies that block communication with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a new letter, Bureau of Justice Assistance Director Jon Adler said officials remained “concerned” that the places had policies that violate the law, even after their previous responses. He asked for a new bevy of documents — including “any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees” — and said the department would subpoena the materials if necessary.

. . . .

Among those jurisdictions in the crosshairs are Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles and the states of California, Illinois and Oregon. In total, the 23 jurisdictions received more than $39 million in fiscal year 2016 money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program — which Sessions is now threatening to put at risk.

ADVERTISEMENT

Local leaders criticized the move. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D), president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said he would skip a planned White House meeting on infrastructure because of it. “An attack on one of our cities mayors who are following the constitution is an attack on all of us,” he said. His city was not among those targeted Wednesday.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio similarly wrote on Twitter he would skip the gathering after Trump’s Justice Department “decided to renew their racist assault on our immigrant communities. It doesn’t make us safer and it violates America’s core values.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said officers in his city endeavor to build trust with residents to reduce public safety threats, and “you cannot do that if you drive a wedge between any immigrant community and the law enforcement.” He said Sessions’s threats were “amazing” in that the attorney general seemed to “disregard what the court system has already said uniformly from coast to coast.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “The White House has been very clear that we don’t support sanctuary cities. We support enforcing the law and following the law, and that is the Department of Justice’s job is to do exactly that, and if mayors have a problem with that, they should talk to Congress.”

Much of this crackdown has been stymied by the courts. A federal judge in California last year blocked Trump’s executive order to cut funding to such places, and a federal judge in Chicago ruled that Sessions had exceeded his authority in imposing new conditions, such as requiring recipients to give immigration authorities access to jails and 48 hours notice when suspected illegal immigrants are to be released. A federal judge in Philadelphia also ruled that city was in compliance with the law and blocked the Justice Department from withholding money. The Justice Department has appealed all those cases.

. . . .

Sessions has long sought to tie crime to immigration — recently releasing data, which experts said was misleading, that said 73 percent of terrorism convictions in the U.S. involved individuals from other countries. Determining a link between illegal immigration and other crime is statistically difficult to do, though some research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than those who are native born. Civil liberties and immigration advocates, too, note there is irony in Sessions threatening to withhold law enforcement grants in the name of fighting crime.”

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

Read the complete article at the link.

On paper, Gonzo isn’t actually in charge of the DHS. That job is nominally in the hands of Lightweight Sycophant Kirstjen Nielsen.

Remarkably, what Sessions is actually supposed to be doing is administering a fair and unbiased U.S. Immigration Court System in a manner that guarantees the legal and Constitutional Due Process rights of each individual brought before those courts by the DHS. Yeah, right! Sessions never met a migrant he didn’t despise and want railroaded out of the country as part of his White Nationalist agenda. And, he’s clearly “in bed” with DHS Enforcement. That’s why the U.S. Immigration Courts under Gonzo Apocalypto are well on their way to becoming mere “Whistle Stops on the Deportation Railway.”

There was a time when what is now ICE worked hard to gain community support and be considered part of the “legitimate law enforcement apparatus.” But, those days are long gone.

Trump, Gonzo, and Tom Homan are well on the way to making ICE the most hated, distrusted, and despised police force in America — the “New American Gestapo” if you will. The aforenamed “nasty clowns” will be gone someday. But, I’m not sure that ICE will ever be able to undo the damage they are doing to its reputation and standing in the law enforcement community.

As one or more Federal Judges has noted in enjoining Gonzo’s illegal overstepping, “once lost, community trust is not easily, if ever, regained by the police.”

PWS

01-25-18

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Wall Funding Illegal – Bing

Related posts:

Related posts:

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Related posts:

Related posts: