Judicial Review – Page 71 – immigrationcourtside.com

CHIEF JUSTICE DEFENDS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AS BABY DONALD CONTINUES TO THROW SPITBALLS – Trump Makes Absurd Claims In Desperate Attempt to Deflect Attention From Existential Danger He & His Historically Corrupt Administration Pose To America’s Future!

https://apple.news/ANc5WDrEdTK-LHT9ys0Qtqg

Matthew Choi reports for Politico:

Politics

Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts, escalating an extraordinary exchange

The president had originally attacked a District Court judge who ruled against his asylum policy as an ‘Obama judge.’

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President Donald Trump took swipes at each other Wednesday in an extraordinary exchange over just how partisan federal courts really are.

Roberts said Wednesday morning there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges” after the president attacked the judge who ruled against his attempt to restrict asylum seekers at the border earlier this week.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Later in the afternoon, Trump hit back with two posts on Twitter:

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why…..,” the president wrote, followed by: “…..are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

The statement from Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was a stark divergence from the chief justice’s stoic aversion to publicly criticizing Trump, even as the president has railed against federal judges who did not rule in his favor.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, called Trump’s comments against the judiciary “unprecedented” in modern history and praised Roberts for defending the Judicial branch. Chief justices have historical avoided fighting with the other co-equal branches of government, but Tobias said he was “heartened” by Wednesday’s break from deference to keep Trump in his lane.

“I think it’s great that the chief justice has said something, because the Senate has done nothing on these issues and somebody has to protect the independence of the judiciary,” Tobias said. “So I’m not troubled.”

The Associated Press first reported Roberts’ comments.

Talking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump criticized Judge Jon Tigar of U.S. District Court in Northern California, who ruled against his policy announced this month that would require migrants to apply for asylum at legal border crossings. Currently, migrants can present themselves to immigration officers after illegally crossing the border and request asylum. Cases from the Northern District of California are appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A number of advocacy groups sued the Trump administration shortly after it announced the policy, and Tigar issued a temporary restraining order effectively thwarting the president’s efforts. Trump on Tuesday accused Tigar of being an “Obama judge” and called the 9th Circuit a “disgrace.” Tigar was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012.

“Every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit because they know that’s not law. They know that’s not what this country stands for. Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten.” Trump said. “People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and then file their case.”

He also said, “The 9th Circuit is really something we have to take a look at because it’s not fair.”

Trump added that he felt confident the case over his asylum policy would go to the Supreme Court where his administration would prevail — similar to his travel ban on citizens of several majority Muslim countries. A modified version of that policy was upheld in the Supreme Court after several challenges in lower federal courts, with Roberts writing the majority opinion in that case.

Even before Trump’s presidency, Republicans have tried to fill federal courts with conservative judges, blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from getting a Senate vote. Trump ultimately filled the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death with Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Senate Republicans stalled several of Obama’s appointees to federal courts until former Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unleashed the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules requiring only a simple majority to approve most federal judicial nominations.

This year, Republicans and Democrats engaged in a dramatic fight over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — Trump’s second nominee to the high court — which was mired in allegations of sexual assault. Both parties accused each other of toying with parliamentary procedure and manipulation in order to block or ram through the confirmation.

Trump has a track record of attacking the judiciary. He disparaged a federal judge in Hawaii last year as practicing “unprecedented judicial overreach” when he blocked an executive order barring entry to citizens of some majority Muslim countries.

In another Wednesday tweet, Trump even toyed with dividing the 9th Circuit into two or three circuits because, he said, it is “too big.”

Trump also lambasted U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over a class-action lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University in 2016. Trump called Curiel, who is of Mexican descent and was born in Indiana, a “Mexican judge” to discredit his rulings. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called the remarks at the time the “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get top news and scoops, every morning — in your inbox.

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

I could have told Chief Justice Roberts that his weak-kneed attempt to tell Trump to “cool the rhetoric” and stop “pushing the envelope” in the Travel Ban case would fall on deaf ears. In fact, as I predicted, Trump’s toxic combination of ignorance, arrogance, and corruption was only “fired up” by the disingenuous performance of the Supremes’ majority in that case.

Trump believes that there are now five “bought and paid for GOP Justices,” including Roberts, on the Supremes; he fully intends to exploit and treat them as the same type of cowards and toadies who have done, and continue to do, his dirty work for him in Congress and the Executive Branch.

Statements in support of judicial independence are most welcome and in this case long overdue. But, actions speak louder than words. Until Roberts and the majority of this colleagues start enforcing the Constitution and the rule of law against the all-out assault by a President who neither understands nor believes in American democracy, Trump will continue to treat them as the same type of patsies that he regularly counts on to mindlessly do his bidding (See, e.g., Sen. Chuck Grassley; Sen. Mitch McConnell; Sen. Lindsey Graham; Speaker Paul Ryan, etc.).

The solution is pretty simple: All nine Justices need to pull together in the future (starting now) and “just say no” to Trump’s abuses of the rule of law.

PWS

11-21-18

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

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

Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

11-21-18

SCOFFLAWS OUTED AGAIN: U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S ILLEGAL ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW: ORDERS PROCESSING OF ALL WHO APPLY TO RESUME! — “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Miriam Jordan reports for the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal registry, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

The advocacy groups accused the government of “violating Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar” in their complaint. They also said the administration had violated federal guidelines by not allowing public comment on the rule.

But Trump administration officials defended the regulatory change, arguing that the president was responding to a surge in migrants seeking asylum based on frivolous claims, which ultimately lead their cases to be denied by an immigration judge. The migrants then ignore any orders to leave, and remain unlawfully in the country.

”The president has sought to halt this dangerous and illegal practice and regain control of the border,” government lawyers said in court filings.

Mr. Trump, who had made stanching illegal immigration a top priority since his days on the campaign trail, has made no secret of his frustration over the swelling number of migrants heading to the United States. The president ordered more than 5,000 active-duty troops to the border to prevent the migrants from entering.

The new rule was widely regarded as an effort to deter Central Americans, many of whom request asylum once they reach the United States, often without inspection, from making the journey over land from their countries to the border.

United States immigration laws stipulate that foreigners who touch American soil are eligible to apply for asylum. They cannot be deported immediately. They are eligible to have a so-called credible fear interview with an asylum officer, a cursory screening that the overwhelming majority of applicants pass. As result, most of the migrants are released with a date to appear in court.

In recent years, more and more migrants have availed of the asylum process, often after entering the United States illegally. A record 23,121 migrants traveling as families were detained at the border in October. Many of the families turn themselves in to the Border Patrol rather than queue up to request asylum at a port of entry.

The Trump administration believes the migrants are exploiting asylum laws to immigrate illegally to the United States. Soaring arrivals have exacerbated a huge backlog of pending cases in the immigration courts, which recently broke the one-million mark. Many migrants skip their court dates, only to remain illegally in the country, which Mr. Trump derides as “catch and release.”

But advocates argue that many migrants are victims of violence or persecution and are entitled to seek sanctuary. Gangs are ubiquitous across El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where lawlessness and corruption enable them to kill with impunity.

Daniel Victor contributed reporting from Hong Kong.

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

Entirely predictable. “Many of the families turn themselves in to the Border Patrol rather than queue up to request asylum at a port of entry.”

Why aren’t ethical requirements being enforced on Government lawyers who present and defend these clearly frivolous positions in court? Knowingly and intentionally depriving individuals of statutory, civil, and constitutional rights, while tying up Federal Judges and other “officers of the court” on frivolous political stunts directed at harming individuals on the basis of race and nationality must, at some point, be deterred!

These are not criminal proceedings, and the Administration is not entitled to a “presumption of innocence” for its lawless actions. At some point, ethical lawyers have an obligation “not to serve” a lawless Administration and to publicly disclose and oppose the Administration’s intentionally illegal actions and intentional wrongdoing aimed at migrants and communities of color in the U.S. “Job security” doesn’t entitle Government employees, let alone those who also are members of the bar, to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

And no, no matter how much the GOP appointees might want to do so, the Supremes can’t authorize the President to rewrite the clear terms of the law at his whim.

PWS

11-20-18

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema Lays Groundwork For Holding Trump’s Child Abusers & Family Separators Accountable!

https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/JECM-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ruling.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Rebecca Wolozin, (571) 373-0518
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, (434) 218-9376

FEDERAL COURT ALLOWS CHALLENGE TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

USING DETAINED CHILDREN AS BAIT TO ARREST FAMILIES

ALEXANDRIA, VA (November 16, 2018) — Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss Legal Aid Justice Center’s lawsuit on behalf of detained immigrant children and their families, striking a blow to a new immigration policy that has kept thousands of children unnecessarily detained for months. The Court’s decision is a victory for immigrant children and their families in Virginia and across the country.

This case is particularly significant, not only in Virginia, but nationally. Over 13,000 children are held by Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the policies challenged in this suit, hundreds of whom are in Virginia. Because the policies are federal policies implemented across the country, the outcome of this case will have a nationwide impact.

Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), together with the intellectual property law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, and Fox, brought this first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit challenging the government’s recent policy of sharing sponsor information and information about sponsors’ household members with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That policy has resulted in ICE arrests of family and friends that came forward to bring their children home.

“The Trump administration has been carrying out a backdoor family separation agenda, keeping immigrant children apart from their families and using children as bait to break up the very families they have traveled so far and risked so much to join,” said Becky Wolozin, lead counsel and attorney with LAJC’s Immigrant Advocacy Program. “This decision is a victory for immigrant children and families. The Court has said clearly that the government cannot run roughshod over the rights of these children and their loved ones.”

The lawsuit stemmed from the experience of four children in ORR custody on Virginia who were held by the government for over five months while their relatives tried to bring them home. Three of the four children were finally reunified with their families – one just weeks before the Court’s order came down. The three children who have been reunified with their families have been dismissed from the case. One child remains in government custody, where he has been held apart from his adult sister for six months, after fleeing violence and neglect in his home country.

“For years, ORR has neglected its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act,” said Sterne Kessler Director Salvador Bezos, lead of the firm’s immigration-focused pro bono matters. “The Administrative Procedure Act provides essential protections against this kind of agency overreach. I am proud of my colleagues’ and LAJC’s efforts to force the government to meet its obligations to the children in its custody.”

“ORR is supposed to protect vulnerable immigrant children. Instead it is placing them in harm’s way under the guise of child welfare,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Legal Director of LAJC’s Immigrant Advocacy Program. “Their policy and its enforcement undermine successfully placing children with their families and the vast surveillance actions are destabilizing immigrant communities.”

In the November 15th ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema firmly upheld children’s right to liberty and the right to family unity for immigrant families. Judge Brinkema found that the children and their sponsors provided sufficient reason to suggest that their constitutional rights were violated, and that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it enacted its ICE sharing policy earlier this year. The case will now move forward as LAJC works to certify the class and the parties work to complete discovery.

Read the legal ruling here.

# # #

Legal Aid Justice Center is a statewide Virginia nonprofit organization whose mission is to strengthen the voices of low-income communities and root out the inequities that keep people in poverty. We provide legal support to immigrant communities facing legal crises and use advocacy and impact litigation to fight back against ICE enforcement and detention abuses. More information is available at http://www.justice4all.org/current-initiatives/fighting-family-separation/

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

Congrats to Rebecca, Simon, and the wonderful crew over at Legal Aid Justice in Virginia! True fighters and leaders of the New Due Process Army!

Hopefully this will pave the way not only for the end of these despicable and illegal behaviors, but also holding the Trump Administration scofflaws and their career employee accomplices who plan and execute these violations of law fully accountable for their intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional actions.

PWS

11-18-18

EYORE FIDDLES WITH DOCKET AS ROME BURNS – Latest Bureaucratic Gobbledygook From Falls Church Shows Why EOIR Must Be Abolished & Replaced By An Independent Court, Run By Sitting Judges, With Professional, Apolitical Administration!

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1112036/download

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

So, let’s see what’s really going on here, beneath all of the “Tower bureaucratese.”

Bureaucrats at Falls Church “Headquarters,” who are beholden to DOJ politicos, are setting the local Immigration Court docket priorities to the exclusion of sitting Immigration Judges, Respondents’ Counsel, NGOs and the members of the public who actually use the system;
But one party, the DHS, is effectively being given unilateral authority to establish the Immigration Courts’ “docket priorities;”
DHS also unilaterally decides which cases will be designated as “family units” and therefore “prioritized;”
EOIR notes that the prioritization of certain “aliens with children” cases between 2014 and 2017, also at the behest of DHS, was a MASSIVE failure that actually decreased productivity and significantly accelerated the backlog (what I refer to as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Nevertheless, EOIR inexplicably decides to “double down” on a known failure just because their “partners” (Sessions’s term) at DHS essentially have ordered them to do so;
Why “Baltimore, but not Arlington;” “San Francisco, but not San Diego,” “Denver, but not Dallas,” etc.?
“EOIR remains committed to the timely completion of all cases consistent with due process” — Really?
- Lead by enforcement guru Jeff Sessions and DHS, the Trump Administration has intentionally “artificially jacked” the “backlog” to over 1.1 million cases;
- If the approximately 350 currently authorized Immigration Judges were all on board and each met their 700 case “quota,” the Immigration Court could complete only about 250,000 cases per year;
- If no additional cases were filed, and none of the judges left, the pending cases wouldn’t be completed until the latter half of 2023;
- But of course, under the Trump Administration’s mismanaged and totally undisciplined enforcement program, new cases will be piled into the system without regard to its capacity and judges will continue to burn out and leave;
- So, effectively, there is no cogent program for getting the backlog under control — ever;
What’s missing from this bureaucratic never-never land is any sense of fairness, competence, or meaningful participation by those most affected by the backlogs and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and who possess the most expertise at arranging dockets for fairness and efficiency: sitting Immigration Judges, Respondent’s Counsel, NGOs, and respondents themselves (along, of course, with the ICE Chief Counsel unencumbered by the “DHS Enforcement Wackos“);
Also glaringly absent: any requirement that the DHS justify their requests to prioritize the dockets or exercise any responsible “prosecutorial discretion” to take “lower priority ” cases off the dockets;
A “no-brainer” in a functioning independent court system would be requiring DHS to remove one (or more) “low priority” cases for each case they wish the court to “prioritize” or otherwise move ahead of other, older pending cases.

The rapidly failing and unfair system needs aggressive oversight and monitoring — from Congress (read the House) and the Article III Courts!

Ultimately, it will continue its “death spiral” until both the EOIR bureaucracy and the Administration politicos who abuse it are permanently removed from the equation and an independent court, run by sitting judges with assistance from other court management professionals with meaningful public input is established. A strong, independent, efficient, unbiased U.S. Immigration Court will also help ICE carry out its law enforcement mission in a professional, legal, non-discriminatory, de-politicized, and humane manner, perhaps bringing enough rationality to the system to save that beleaguered agency from its critics.

PWS

11-18-18

THE HILL: Alex Nowrasteh @ CATO Says Trump Had No Business Restricting Asylum

https://apple.news/A6lssfpDNQByUfFOz21B3iA

Alex Nowrasteh writes in The Hill:

Trump should not restrict asylum

Last week the Trump administration announced new rules that deny asylum to immigrants who initially entered the United States illegally. Immigration law explicitly allows illegal immigrants to apply for asylum, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Muslim Travel Ban case gave the president wide power to ban any group of foreigners if he considers them detrimental to the United States.

President Trump’s announcement is in response to the caravan of 4,000-5,000 Central American migrants and asylum seekers slowly making their way to the border. Before the election, Trump stated that “unknown Middle Easterners” were in the caravan who pose a national security threat. President Trump justified the Muslim Travel Ban with an exaggerated national security threat, the legitimacy of the new asylum rules rest on the same fear.

There is little national security threat from the caravan.

There have been zero terrorists from Mexico or Central America who have committed or attempted to commit attacks on U.S. soil during the 43-year period from 1975 through the end of 2017. Those countries are afflicted with ghastly rates of violent crime exacerbated by an American-funded war on drugs, but there is no international terrorist threat emanating from Central America.

Most people in the migrant caravan will apply for asylum while the rest will try to enter illegally. Looking more broadly at terrorist attacks committed by all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants over the last 43 years, only 20 people entering the country illegally or as asylum seekers committed or attempted to commit an attack on U.S. soil.

The illegal immigrant terrorists, who all came from countries outside of the Western Hemisphere except for a single Canadian environmental extremist, killed zero people in their attacks. The asylum seekers, who all came from countries outside of the Western Hemisphere except for one Cuban, did manage to murder nine people in attacks. The annual chance of being murdered by a terrorist who entered as an asylum-seeker was about 1 in 1.3 billion per year from 1975 through the end of 2017.

To put that small chance in context, the annual chance of being murdered in a homicide in the United States is about 89,000 times as great as being murdered in a terrorist attack by an asylum-seeker during the same 43-year period.

Altogether, terrorists who initially entered as asylum-seekers or illegal immigrants accounted for only about 0.3 percent of the 3,037 people murdered in attacks committed by foreign-born terrorists on U.S. soil during that time.

As terrible as each of those murders were, they are not a sufficient national security justification for changing asylum rules and potentially deny many legitimate claims.

There are few foreign-born terrorists who want to commit attacks on U.S. soil, but the government’s revamped visa vetting system is superb at weeding them out. Asylum-seekers and everybody else seeking to enter the United States legally are rightfully subject to a vetting procedure that mistakenly permitted the entry of one radicalized terrorist for every 29 million visa or status approvals from 2002 to 2016 according to research by my colleague David Bier. Most of those terrorists didn’t murder anybody in their attacks, meaning that one radicalized terrorist was admitted for every 379 million visa or status approvals from 2002 through 2016.

Even by government standards, that’s an effective system.

Obviously, people who enter as illegal immigrants are not vetted by the government. However, none of those vetting failures from 2002-2016 was of an asylum-seeker who radicalized and had terroristic intents before coming here. They either entered as children or radicalized after their arrival.

To be fair to the president, it’s theoretically possible that the current caravan of Central Americans could contain entirely new national security threats that are different from the past. The Trump administration has revealed no evidence to indicate that this caravan poses more of a risk to national security than previous Central American migrants or that it contains “unknown Middle Easterners.” The government should have to show that these people threaten our national security.

The recent Supreme Court rubber stamp of Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban granted the president seemingly unlimited powers to close the border or to clog up the asylum system with new red tape. The major justification for new asylum rules has been the national security threat posed by the caravan. Regardless of the president’s power, there is no evidence that this caravan poses an actual national security threat.

Alex Nowrasteh is a senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

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

Interestingly, Alex reaches the same conclusion that Nolan Rappaport did in his recent article in The Hill, http://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/11/13/the-hill-nolan-says-trumps-border-order-is-nqrfpt/, although their supporting reasoning was different.

Alex correctly points out that the Supremes took a “nose dive” in the “Travel Ban case” by allowing Trump to get away with a clearly bogus and discriminatory “national security” rationale. While Chief Justice Roberts, ensconced in the “Supreme Ivory Tower,” might have fantasized that his mealy-mouthed “words of caution” would have some restraining impact on Trump, as I had predicted, they did nothing of the sort.

No, it just showed Trump that Roberts and his GOP colleagues on the Court were afraid to stand up to him. The same type of obsequious sycophants to Executive power that Trump believes that he and Mitch McConnell (with help from the Heritage Foundation, voters who don’t understand their own best interests, and a subservient Senate majority) have been rapidly installing on the Federal Courts.

Unless and until Roberts & Co. get some backbone, read the Constitution, and “just say no” to Trump’s lies, racism, and disingenuous White Nationalist agenda, he’s going to continue to roll over them while crushing democracy and our Constitutional system of government along the way, not to mention destroying the lives of real human beings — something that the majority of today’s Supremes seem to have totally tuned out.

Meanwhile, while I never had pictured myself as having lots in common with the folks at Cato, I’m happy that Alex has the courage to expose both the irrational evil of Donald Trump and the gross dereliction of duty going on at the Supremes in such clear and understandable language.

If the Supreme aren’t willing to stand up for the Constitutional rights of the rest of us when it counts, they might well find their black robes, marble palace, and lifetime tenure scant protection when Trump or some future lawless demagogue in his mold comes after them.

PWS

11-16-18

BIA’S LATEST ON CAT DETACHED FROM REALITY – MATTER OF J-R-G-P, 27 I &N DEC. 482 (BIA 2018)

3944_ed

Matter of J-R-G-P-, 27 I & N Dec. 482 (BIA 2018)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Where the evidence regarding an application for protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988), plausibly establishes that abusive or squalid conditions

n pretrial detention facilities, prisons, or mental health institutions in the country of removal are the result of neglect, a lack of resources, or insufficient training and education, rather than a specific intent to cause severe pain and suffering, an Immigration Judge’s finding that the applicant did not establish a sufficient likelihood that he or she will experience “torture” in these settings is not clearly erroneous.

PANEL: APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES GREER and WENDTLAND; CROSSETT, TEMPORARY APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

OPINION BY: JUDGE ANNE GREER

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

BIA’S LATEST ON CAT DETACHED FROM REALITY – MATTER OF J-R-G-P, 27 I &N DEC. 482 (BIA 2018)

- - No dialogue, no dissent, on today’s BIA. And, yes, the reviewing courts have largely deferred to the BIA’s interpretation of “specific intent.”
  - But, there are other plausible constructions that actually are more consistent with the purpose of the CAT to prevent the use of torture. In her dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, 23 I &N Dec. 291 (BIA 2002) my former colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg set forth a “better view” (note, I also filed a vigorous separate dissenting opinion in J-E-):
    - “The majority’s reading of the regulations functionally converts the Senate understanding that torture must be specifically intended into a “specific intent” requirement. I disagree. I can find no basis to conclude that the Senate understanding was intended to require proof of an intent to accomplish a precise criminal act, as the majority contends is required. See Matter of J-E-, supra, at 301 (defining “specific intent”). Rather, the plain language of the text of 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(5) reflects only that something more than an accidental consequence is necessary to establish the probability of torture. Id. (stating plainly that unanticipated or unintended pain and suffering that is severe enough to constitute torture is not covered). Moreover, 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(4) states that a threat of infliction of severe physical pain or suffering may amount to torture.”
  - The J-R-G-P- opinion basically analogizes the intentionally pathetic efforts of the Mexican Government to deal with mental illness with the efforts of “poor countries like Haiti” at issue in Matter of J-E.
    - But, Mexico is actually the 14^th largest economy in the world (11^th by consumer buying power); Haiti rates 141^st. It appears Mexico in fact has more than adequate resources to deal with mental illness; it has just intentionally chosen not to do so, even knowing the severe harm constituting torture that choice intentionally inflicts on individuals.
  - The opinion also minimizes the evidence of the intentionally torturous conditions that exist in the Mexican institutional mental health system.
    - From the 2017 State Department Country Report on Mexico: Among the numerous human rights abuses: “lethal violence and sexual assault against institutionalized persons with disabilities;”
    - Here’s how the same Country Report addresses the specifically horrible treatment of institutionalized individuals with disabilities: “Abuses in mental health institutions and care facilities, including those for children, were a problem. Abuses of persons with disabilities included lack of access to justice, the use of physical and chemical restraints, physical and sexual abuse, trafficking, forced labor, disappearances, and illegal adoption of institutionalized children. Institutionalized persons with disabilities often lacked adequate medical care and rehabilitation, privacy, and clothing and often ate, slept, and bathed in unhygienic conditions. They were vulnerable to abuse from staff members, other patients, or guests at facilities where there was inadequate supervision. Documentation supporting the person’s identity and origin was lacking, and there were instances of disappearances.
    - As of August 25, the NGO Disability Rights International (DRI) reported that most residents had been moved to other institutions from the privately run institution Casa Esperanza, where they were allegedly victims of pervasive sexual abuse by staff and, in some cases, human trafficking. Two of the victims died within the first six months after transfer to other facilities, and the third was sexually abused. DRI stated the victim was raped repeatedly during a period of seven months at the Fundacion PARLAS I.A.P. and that another woman was physically abused at an institution in another state to which she was transferred.
  - Here’s the “real skinny” on how Mexico intentionally scrimps on budget and tortures those institutionalized for mental health disabilities: “THE NIGHTMARE THAT IS MEXICO’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM byAriel Jacoby from Medelita (https://www.medelita.com) | Thursday, Jan 21, 2016 tags: features (https://www.medelita.com/blog/category/features)health-feat-img.jpg&url=https://www.medelita.com/blog/the-nightmare-that-is-mexicos-mental– system/)
    - Though there are an estimated 10 million people with mental, visual, hearing or motor disabilities living in Mexico, the country’s mental health system is so dysfunctional that the unlucky patients under its care are colloquially referred to as “abandanodos (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mexican-psychiatric-institution-hell/story?id=12267276)” – abandoned ones.
    - It’s an accurate description for these lost souls. A 93-page report from Disability Rights International (http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/526/526.pdf) revealed the horrific living conditions at Mexican mental health facilities, which are a breeding ground for human rights violations and abuse of the handicapped patients that these institutions are meant to help. Many patients never received a clinical diagnosis of their condition and don’t have families to give them private care – these patients remain locked inside the hospitals indefinitely and become completely anonymous to the world.
    - Patients rock back and forth in urine soaked clothes or walk about soiled, feces-smeared floors without shoes. Bedsheets are an uncommon luxury; hygiene is an abstract concept in a Mexican mental hospital where some “patients and their caretakers could not fully explain how or why they were institutionalized” (New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/world/americas/01mexico.html)). Without proper oversight and the absence of any sort of registry system, it is not uncommon for mentally ill children to literally disappear from Mexican mental health facilities with no record of their name, age, or families.
    - In this dismal hole of human despair, atrocities are ubiquitous and plentiful (http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/01/appalling-conditions-in-mexicos-mental-health-institutions/). Many of the patients in these institutions have been detained against their will for years and will likely languish inside the walls of these torture chambers until their death. Psychotropic drugs are excessively relied upon to treat patients and the more aggressive patients who don’t respond to medication can be subject to forced lobotomies, which need only the approval of the facility director. Eric Rosenthal, the director of Disability Rights International, found that 1/4 of the mental health facilities were keeping patients in restraints for extended periods of time – an act that violates Article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture.

- - - - The concept of human rights has no real meaning or significance in these unregulated, inhumane environments. The investigation conducted by DRI revealed the severity and frequency of human rights violations within the walls of such state-run facilities. In one institution, a terrified blind patient admitted to being raped by one of the staff members – a claim that was quickly dismissed by Mexican officials.
      - In another facility, investigators discovered two young women who had been institutionalized at a young age, grew up in the hospital, and had been working as unpaid laborers for years. There exists no record of how or why these women were institutionalized and Mexican law requires no legal review to detain them indefinitely as modern-day slave laborers.
      - The director of Samuel Ramirez Hospital, one of the 31 state-run mental health facilities in Mexico, calls his own hospital “hell” and has voiced his belief that the mental health of every patient at his facility have been made worse by their institutionalization. He blames the lack of proper funding and a deficiency of properly trained personnel – at a different mental institution nearby, there are only two psychologists and one doctor to treat the 365 patients who have been institutionalized there.
      - The sad state of Mexico’s mental health system can be traced back to its government’s complex and deep-rooted political issues. Mexico’s budget for mental health makes up about 2.5% of its overall health spending. This is an improvement from the paltry 1.6% allocated to mental health a decade ago, but still significantly lower than the WHO’s recommendation of 10%. Without a significant electorate of mental health advocates, mental health lacks any real political sway in Mexico. Back in 2006, Mexico was among 96 countries who ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp? navid=13&pid=150). But it is clear that not much has changed within the system itself.

Bottom line: The BIA is using “legalese” to “normalize” sending an ill individual back to probable intentional torture in a “dismal hole of human despair.” After all, if being intentionally thrown in this kind of “torture chamber” by a country that has intentionally chosen to ignore, or in many cases aggravate, extreme human rights abuses, then who indeed could actually win protection under CAT? The message is clear — nobody! Use this case to deny ‘em all! Meet those quotas! Keep the assembly line moving!

Political officials of all Administrations have never been enthusiastic about complying with our international obligations under the CAT. Several Attorneys General, BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, and some Immigration Judges have found lots of creative ways to narrow the scope of protection, raise the standards of proof to near impossible levels, and to intentionally misconstrue country conditions against CAT applicants.

Undoubtedly, that gratifies and satisfies the desires of their political masters and handlers. Not surprisingly it comes as the Administration is denying access to asylum seekers and sending them into the CAT “reasonable fear” process.

What it doesn’t do is honestly live up to our solemn and binding international and human rights agreements, nor does it comply with Constitutional concepts of fundamental fairness and Due Process.

We need an independent U.S. Immigration Court System populated by Judges from diverse backgrounds with expertise in immigration and human rights laws, human empathy, and the courage and integrity to stand up for the full legal and human rights of the most vulnerable and endangered individuals in our legal system. Even when it could be “career threatening!”

PWS

11-16-18

THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS TRUMP’S BORDER ORDER IS NQRFPT!

“NQRFPT” = “Not Quite Ready for Prime Time” (as some might remember from my days on the bench)

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/416195-trump-should-withdraw-his-asylum-proclamation

Nolan writes:

. . . .

Detention will continue to be a major problem, regardless.

Under the proclamation, DHS would not have to screen aliens to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution for asylum purposes, but it would have to screen them to determine if they have a reasonable fear of persecution.

The United States is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, which prohibits expelling a refugee to a country where it is likely that he will be persecuted. Asylum just requires a well-founded fear of persecution.

This condition is met with the withholding of deportation provision in the INA for aliens who establish that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted.

America also is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which provides that, “No State Party shall expel … a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

Relief under these provisions is limited to sending the alien to a country where he would not be persecuted or tortured.

The proclamation should be withdrawn until these problems can be resolved.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article (I have just reprinted the concluding section above). It also was a “headliner” at ImmigrationProf Blog: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2018/11/president-trump-should-withdraw-his-asylum-proclamation.html

Nolan’s conclusion ties in nicely to my preceding posts that confirm, as Nolan points out, that CBP, the Asylum Office, the Immigration Courts, and probably the Federal Courts are woefully unprepared for the additional chaos and workload that is likely to be created by Trump’s shortsighted actions. Like most of what Trump does in the immigration areas it demonstrates a chronic misunderstanding of the laws, how the system operates, the reality of what happens at the border, and ignores the views of career civil servants and experts in the area. In other words, a totally unprofessional performance. But, that’s what “kakistocracy” is all about.

We’ll see what happens next. I expect a U.S. District court ruling on the ACLU’s suit to stop implementation of the Executive Order and the “Interim Regs” to be issued in the near future.

PWS

11-13-18

GROUPS SUE TO BLOCK TRUMP’S ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAWS — Administration Outraged At Prospect Of Being Held Accountable For Violating Laws!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/trump-asylum-seekers-mexico-border-ban-lawsuit-aclu-splc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Amanda Holpuch in New York

Published: 17:44 EST Friday, 09 November 2018

Following Amanda Holpuch

Leading civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to end Donald Trump’s ban on people seeking asylum at the US border with Mexico because it violates US law.

Migrant caravan families face illness, exhaustion and danger

Starting on Saturday, people fleeing persecution can be barred from the asylum process if they do not approach the border at designated border checkpoints.

The order will remain in effect for at least three months, unless a judge rules in favor of the lawsuit filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Center for Constitutional Rights.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said Trump and his administration were trying to override US law by instituting the ban. “This action undermines the rule of law and is a great moral failure because it tries to take away protections from individuals facing persecution – it’s the opposite of what America should stand for,” Jadwat said.

The government considers the bar an emergency measure to respond to people fleeing violence in the Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, but it comes after Trump repeatedly described desperate Central Americans as “an invasion”.

The 18-page lawsuit challenges Trump administration claims that the border is in “crisis” and instead describes how illegal border crossings have declined significantly from record highs in the early 2000s – 1.25 million fewer people were processed at the southern border in fiscal year 2018 than the in fiscal year 2000.

While Trump administration officials have for years accused many asylum seekers of manipulating the system, the lawsuit said many people seeking refuge are not well informed about the process or know that they should approach a designated port of entry to request asylum.

“Even those refugees who know that designated ports of arrival exist often have no idea where they are or how to find them,” the suit said.

The suit also claims asylum processing has slowed in recent months in ways that can be “life-threatening” for people seeking refuge.

“The region of Mexico near the border with the United States is a particularly violent area with limited law enforcement capacity,” the suit said. “Asylum seekers turned back from a port of entry have been raped, beaten and kidnapped and held for ransom by cartel members waiting outside.”

In a joint statement, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice said the president’s order was lawful. “We should not have to go to court to defend the president’s clear legal authority or our rights as a sovereign nation, but we will not hesitate to do so,” the statement said. “We are confident that the rule of law will prevail.

“The fact that the ACLU and its partners would go to court to specifically sue for the right for aliens to enter the country illegally is demonstrative of the open border community’s disdain for our nation’s laws that almost all rational Americans find appalling.”

The suit was brought on behalf of the immigrant advocacy groups East Bay Sanctuary Covenant and Al Otro Lado, as well as the Innovation Law Lab and Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles. The suit says the new ban forces these aid groups to divert their resources from providing assistance and support to individuals fleeing persecution and violence.

Judge orders Trump administration to continue ‘Dreamers’ program

The bar follows two years of efforts by the Trump administration to restrict legal and illegal immigration to the US, including by targeting the asylum and refugee process.

In June, former attorney general Jeff Sessions ordered US immigration courts to stop granting asylum to victims of domestic abuse and gang violence.

In August 2017, the Trump administration announced it shut down the Central American Minors (Cam) program, which allowed people lawfully in the US to apply for refugee resettlement or temporary immigration status for their children or other eligible family members.

It has also shrunk refugee admissions to a record low – making it more difficult for people to apply for refuge from their home country instead of pursuing a case at the border.

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

Trump’s attempt to rewrite asylum law is a total sham. We’ll see how the Federal Court reacts.

Also interesting that there is no evidence that the Administration is sending additional Asylum Officers to ports of entry. Another indication that this is a sham meant to punish, discourage, and deter asylum seekers — not just to encourage them to go to ports of entry which many do already.

PWS

11-10-18

GONZO’S WORLD: Racist AG Takes Parting Shot At Civil Rights, African-Americans, People Of Color, & DOJ Career Lawyers

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-limits-consent-decrees.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Katie Benner reports for the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has drastically limited the ability of federal law enforcement officials to use court-enforced agreements to overhaul local police departments accused of abuses and civil rights violations, the Justice Department announced on Thursday.

In a major last-minute act, Mr. Sessions signed a memorandum on Wednesday before President Trump fired him sharply curtailing the use of so-called consent decrees, court-approved deals between the Justice Department and local governments that create a road map of changes for law enforcement and other institutions.

The move means that the decrees, used aggressively by Obama-era Justice Department officials to fight police abuses, will be more difficult to enact. Mr. Sessions had signaled he would pull back on their use soon after he took office when he ordered a review of the existing agreements, including with police departments in Baltimore, Chicago and Ferguson, Mo., enacted amid a national outcry over the deaths of black men at the hands of officers.

Mr. Sessions imposed three stringent requirements for the agreements. Top political appointees must sign off on the deals, rather than the career lawyers who have done so in the past; department lawyers must lay out evidence of additional violations beyond unconstitutional behavior; and the deals must have a sunset date, rather than being in place until police or other law enforcement agencies have shown improvement.

The document reflected Mr. Sessions’s staunch support for law enforcement and his belief that overzealous civil rights lawyers under the Obama administration vilified the local police. The federal government has long conducted oversight of local law enforcement agencies, and consent decrees have fallen in and out of favor since the first one was adopted in Pittsburgh more than two decades ago. The new guidelines push more of that responsibility onto state attorneys general and other local agencies.

Mr. Sessions conceded in his memo that consent decrees are sometimes the only way to ensure that government agencies follow the law. But he argued that changes were necessary because agreements that impose long-term, wide-ranging obligations on local governments could violate their sovereignty.

By setting a higher bar for the deals, Mr. Sessions limited a tool that the Justice Department has used to help change policing practices nationwide.

Mr. Sessions’s new guidelines make it nearly impossible for rank-and-file Justice Department lawyers to use the agreements, warned Jonathan M. Smith, a former official in the department’s civil rights division and the executive director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

“This memo will make the Justice Department much less effective in enforcing civil rights laws,” Mr. Smith said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the memo.

A consent decree is a type of injunction that allows federal courts to enforce an agreement negotiated between two parties — say, the Justice Department and a local police department — to address a violation of the law. The department started enforcing them during the Clinton administration, after a statute was enacted in 1994 allowing the attorney general to use court agreements to remedy systemic, unconstitutional behavior.

The agreements gained a higher profile as the Obama administration entered into 14 of them as part of its efforts to improve relationships between the police and their communities. They became even more prominent after the killings of black men at the hands of the police captured headlines and set off the Black Lives Matter movement.

In March 2017, a month after he took office, Mr. Sessions ordered a review of the use of consent decrees to ensure that they “advance the safety and protection of the public.” He said that the pacts should also ensure that the police are safe and respected and that they should not interfere with recruiting efforts by the local police.

Mr. Sessions, who has long championed local sheriffs and police officers, maintained that the agreements “reduce morale” among police officers and lead to more violent crime. Academics and researchers have contested his assertions about the links between consent decrees and crime rates.

Under Mr. Sessions, the department also dropped Obama-era investigations into the police in Chicago and Louisiana.

Last month, Mr. Sessions opposed a consent decree between the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois attorney general enacted after a Justice Department report unveiled in the final days of the Obama administration found rampant use of excessive force aimed at black and Latino people. Under Mr. Sessions, the Justice Department said the deal placed too many restrictions on Chicago’s police superintendent.

“When Jeff Sessions intervened in the locally negotiated consent decree in Chicago, it belied the love of federalism that he professes and uses to justify this effort to effectively end the use of consent decrees,” said Vanita Gupta, the chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The agreements enacted after high-profile police killings in recent years would likely not exist if Mr. Sessions’s restrictions had been in place.

“The need for consent decrees and the oversight they guarantee,” she said, “has not disappeared.”

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

Ah, “Courtsiders,” you might have thought that my regular “Gonzo’s World” feature column would disappear with the eagerly awaited departure of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions from the office he never should have held in the first place. But, alas, as other commenters and I have said on numerous occasions, the pernicious influence of, and damage to nation and our Constitution by, Gonzo in less than two years in office will remain with us for years, if not decades to come!

Between Gonzo and Trump, the reputation and role of the DOJ as a credible organization and fair and unbiased protector of citizens’ and residents’ Constitutional and legal rights has been totally trashed; rebuilding it might prove to be “mission impossible.” After all, the true damage can’t even be objectively assessed until we get “regime change.”

Indeed, it might be time to think about a totally different structure and safeguards for “America’s Law Department” — certainly, removal of the U.S. Immigration Courts from this disastrous mix of improper influence, incompetence, and unethical behavior has to be “Priority I” if and when we return to a system of responsible government.

With respect to Katie’s report, pretty sleazy move by a really sleazy guy. But, “Black Lives” and the lives of immigrants and other folks of color have never mattered much to Sessions and his White Nationalist Nation.

He claims he might run for Senate again in Alabama. Having gotten this morally corrupt and incompetent individual off the public dole, it’s important to America’s future to pull out all the stops to insure that he remains “retired” from public office.

Fox News deserves him. I doubt he actually knows any law; certainly many Federal Judges have expressed skepticism about that. But, reading off the “cue cards” and false narratives that various White Nationalist groups have prepared for him ought to keep the “Trump crazies” happy and well fed.

Sure, Whitaker is a totally unqualified and unprincipled “acting successor.” But nobody except committed White Supremacists should mourn the departure of Sessions.

One of many, many horrible things about Trump is that when he inevitably turns on his former loyalists, he is so vicious and demeaning that he actually creates undeserved sympathy for these clowns. Nobody was forced to become a Trump supporter. They all went into it with open eyes. And, Trump’s lack of character, loyalty, manners, ethics, and human decency have always been on public display.

The folks we really should feel sorry for is African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Jews, Asian Americans, immigrants, the LGBTQ community, refugees, children, journalists, civil servants, civil rights and immigration lawyers, judges, state and local officials, career diplomats, and all of the other many groups of Americans that Sessions, Trump, and their White Nationalist cronies have abused. The stain of Gonzo’s tenure will not be easily or quickly erased.

PWS

11-09-18

TRUMP’S BOGUS BORDER CRACKDOWN & ATTACK ON ASYLUM EXPLAINED: Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia & The Penn State Law Center For Immigrants Rights Clinic Provide “Fact Sheet”

Blocking those Seeking Entry PolicyFinal

Joint Rule and Presidential Proclamation On Entry and Asylum: What You Need To Know

Updated November 9, 2018

What are these new policies?

On November 9, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an interim final rule and a presidential proclamation affecting individuals seeking entry at the southern border of the United States. These executive actions place restrictions on asylum for certain noncitizens arriving in the United States.

What are these policies intended to do?

The interim final rule governs eligibility for asylum and screening procedures for those subject to a new presidential proclamation. Together, these executive actions suspend entry for noncitizens crossing the southern border and bar such noncitizens from asylum.

What is the scope of the joint interim rule and presidential proclamation?

The rule applies prospectively, so individuals who arrived in the United States before the effective date of November 9, 2018 are not covered. The rule also does not impact two related forms of relief known as withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. These forms of relief are narrower and without the same benefits of asylum protection. No later than 90 days from the date of the presidential proclamation, November 9, 2018, the Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security should submit to the President a

recommendation on whether the suspension should be extended or renewed.

What legal authority is the administration relying upon to issue the interim final and

presidential proclamation?

The joint interim rule points to several sections in the immigration statute known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Some of these sections are summarized below.

● INA § 212(f) states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of anyclass of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.
1

● INA § 208(d)(5)(B)● INA §
●

Has the administration used INA § 212(f) before?

Yes. Most recently, INA § 212(f) was used as a basis for three travel bans issued by the President, each of which prohibits the entry of nationals from certain countries. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of Hawaii v. Trump (Travel Ban 3.0). Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that the travel ban does not violate the INA and described INA § 212(f) as a “comprehensive delegation” which “exudes deference to the President in every clause.”

Is the President’s use of INA § 212(f) in the Travel Ban distinguishable?

Yes. In Hawaii v. Trump, the courts did not analyze the suspension clause at INA § 212(f) against the asylum provision at INA § 208(a).

What are the legal concerns with these executive actions?

There is a concern that the executive actions violate the immigration statute and other laws. While the interim final rule and presidential proclamation identify some sections of the immigration statute, these sections cannot be read in isolation to the statute as a whole, nor can it conflict with the U.S. Constitution, statutes and other laws. One concern is that these actions violate the statutory provision that governs asylum law and other laws. INA § 208 states that any person physically present in the United States, regardless of how or where he or she entered is eligible to apply for asylum. The section states in part, “

ated port of arrival.

The goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.

states that “[t]he Attorney General may provide by regulation for any

other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not

inconsistent with this Act.”

215(a) states that it is “unlawful . . . for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt

to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations,and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

INA

§

208(b)(2)(C) states that the “Attorney General may by regulation establish

additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien

shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).”

Any alien . . . who arrives in the United States (whether or not

at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) irrespective of such alien’s status,

may apply for asylum . . .” (emphasis added).

Because

the plain language of the INA is clear that

any noncitizen is eligible for asylum regardless of her manner of entry, there is a concern that these policies violate the statute by restricting the availability of asylum seekers only to those who

present at a design

2

Why is the administration issuing these policies?

It is the administration’s position that the United States has seen an increase in the number of noncitizens arriving at the United States between ports of entry along the southern border and that

many of the asylum claims brought forth by this population are without merit.

What are some of the countervailing views to the administration’s position taken by some

refugee advocates and scholars?

Many asylum seekers arriving at the southern border are from the Northern Triangle which is comprised of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. The violence and danger in these countries is well documented. Individuals who have suffered or will suffer individual harm for a specific

reason are eligible to apply for asylum under the immigration statute and other laws. Many of the

asylum claims by individuals from the Northern Triangle are with merit.

What is an “Interim Final Rule”?

An Interim Final Rule becomes effective immediately upon publication and is an exception to the general rule that public notice and comment must take place before the effective date of a regulation. DOJ and DHS have concluded that a “good cause” exception exists to publish this asylum regulation as an interim final rule. Written comments can be submitted by the public for a period of sixty days from the date of publication.

What is a presidential proclamation?

A presidential proclamation is one form of presidential power and similar to an executive order. It is an order issued by the President of the United States and may possess the authority of law. See e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

What comes next?

Given the legal concerns of restricting asylum, litigation is expected. Further, under section 4 of the presidential proclamation, if any section of the proclamation is found to be invalid, the remainder of the proclamation shall remain effective.

Where can I find more resources?

See the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic website for updates on this and other immigration policies. Also visit:

● Department of Homeland Security

● American Immigration Lawyers Association

● American Immigration Council

● Human Rights FirstThe goal of this document is to provide general information and is not meant to act as a substitute to legal advice from an attorney.
3

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

It’s critically important to the future of our nation and the world that the actions of Trump and his White Nationalist scofflaws be resisted in the courts and in our political system.

In the meantime, since virtually everything the Administration says on this topic is a false narrative or obfuscation of their real racist agenda, an honest expert analysis like this is a “gold mine.”

We can (and are) diminishing ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!

PWS

11-09-18

TRUMP CELEBRATES MIDTERM “VICTORY” WITH BOLD FOUR-PRONGED ATTACK ON CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW! — Trump Earns Courtside’s Coveted “Five Clown Rating!”

First, he trashed the 1^stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;
Second, he fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions (no tears, please, for this corrupt public official and immoral person) and appointed sycophantic Acting Attorney General (and former right-wing commentator and established Trump suck-up) Matt Whitaker, a sleazy maneuver which now gives Trump control over the Mueller investigation through Whittaker (indeed, some legal experts say this maneuver in and of itself could easily be construed as an obstruction of justice);
Third, while half-heartedly saying he would be willing to work with House Democrats, he then threatened them with retaliation if they had the audacity to exercise their Constitutional authority to investigate him and his corrupt Administration;
Finally, he reportedly plans on Friday to illegally overrule the Refugee Act of 1980 for asylum seekers through an “Executive Order” – a mean-spirited, controversial, and unnecessary move that almost certainly will be blocked by the Federal Courts therefore touching off yet another round of acrimonious and largely frivolous litigation. You can read Vivian Salama’s account about Trump’s latest plans to thumb his nose at the law in pursuit of his racist agenda in the WSJ here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-immigration-directive-revamping-asylum-system-1541629100?emailToken=00b769f8b7a4e89eba0f99cf5b2477154uBTkiIEqaA4RxhOj6r+MwpvKdjXbRWeUanRuOJdVFK4XBp2y4cx7py6fMlif4uGIYfAXBjcnBluaPYf4RL4PppT8TfGt2sTJrEbTE781qozrIjvN+p3sEae+AYFLY5x&reflink=article_email_share

And, remember folks, this is just “Day One of Phase II” of America’s Continuous National Clown Show! Stay tuned for more daily clown performances and hilarious degradations of America, our laws, human rights, and our values from under the Big Top! Today’s Trump performance get Courtside’s coveted “Five Clown” rating!

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-06-18

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-resign-disgrace.html

Stern writes:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on Wednesday at the request of Donald Trump. He served a little less than two years as the head of the Department of Justice. During that time, Sessions used his immense power to make America a crueler, more brutal place. He was one of the most sadistic and unscrupulous attorneys general in American history.

At the Department of Justice, Sessions enforced the law in a manner that harmed racial minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ people. He rolled backObama-era drug sentencing reforms in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders locked away for longer. He reversed a policy that limited the DOJ’s use of private prisons. He undermined consent decrees with law enforcement agencies that had a history of misconduct and killed a program that helped local agencies bring their policing in line with constitutional requirements. And he lobbied against bipartisan sentencing reform, falsely claiming that such legislation would benefit “a highly dangerous cohort of criminals.”

Sessions’ attack on immigrants was equally ruthless. He compelled immigration judges to order the deportation of more unauthorized immigrants and punished them when they did not. He barred most victims of domestic violence from seeking asylum in the United States, deporting survivors back to their persecutors. He attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, subjecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to deportation but was too inept to do so lawfully. He tried to prevent states and cities from protecting immigrants within their borders. And he implemented the “zero tolerance” family separation policy, imprisoning thousands of individuals at the border for the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, then seizing their children and locking them in cages. (Hundreds of these kids are still separatedfrom their parents.)

Meanwhile, Sessions mobilized the DOJ’s attorneys to torture immigrant minors in other ways. He fought in court to keep undocumented teenagers pregnant against their will, defending the Trump administration’s decision to block their access to abortion. His Justice Department made the astonishing claim that the federal government could decide that forced birth was in the “best interest” of children. It also revealed these minors’ pregnancies to family members who threatened to abuse them. And when the American Civil Liberties Union defeated this position in court, his DOJ launched a failed legal assault on individual ACLU lawyers for daring to defend their clients.

As he oversaw family separation, forced birth, and mass incarceration, Sessions found time to degrade LGBTQ Americans and their families. He issued a memo alleging that federal civil rights laws do not protect transgender employees, a position the Justice Department recently reiterated to the Supreme Court. He also argued that these civil rights laws do not protect gay people. His DOJ defended Trump’s ban on open transgender military service by claiming that trans people are disordered deviants. Under his leadership, the DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to rule that many businesses have a First Amendment right to turn away same-sex couples. (Sessions gave a speech to the anti-LGBTQ group that brought that case to SCOTUS, thanking them for their “important work” on behalf of religious liberty.)

The guiding principle of Sessions’ career is animus toward people who are unlike him. While serving in the Senate, he voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expressly protected LGBTQ women. He opposed immigration reform, including relief for young people brought to America by their parents as children. He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He voted against a federal hate crime bill protecting gay people. Before that, as Alabama attorney general, he tried to prevent LGBTQ students from meeting at a public university. But as U.S. attorney general, he positioned himself as an impassioned defender of campus free speech.

While Sessions doesn’t identify as a white nationalist, his agenda as attorney general abetted the cause of white nationalism. His policies were designed to make the country more white by keeping out Hispanics and locking up blacks. His tenure will remain a permanent stain on the Department of Justice. Thousands of people were brutalized by his bigotry, and our country will not soon recover from the malice he unleashed.

His successor could be even worse.

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

Can’t overstate the intentional damage that this immoral, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted man has done to millions of human lives and the moral and legal fabric of our country. “The Father of the New American Gulag,” America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser, and the destroyer of Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts are among a few of his many unsavory legacies!

The scary thing: Stern is right — “His successor could be even worse.” If so, the survival of our Constitution and our nation will be at risk!

PWS

11-06-18

GONZO’S WORLD – NEW TRAC DATA SHOWS SESSIONS’S IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN INTERFERENCE AND GROSS MISMANAGEMENT HAS “ARTIFICIALLY JACKED” THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG TO OVER 1 MILLION CASES! – And, That’s With More Judges — “Throwing Good Money After Bad!”

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Figure 1. Immigration Court Workload, FY 2018

The Immigration Court backlog has jumped by 225,846 cases since the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This represents an overall growth rate of 49 percent since the beginning of FY 2017. Results compiled from the case-by-case records obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the court reveal that pending cases in the court’s active backlog have now reached 768,257—a new historic high.

In addition, recent decisions by the Attorney General just implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have ballooned the backlog further. With a stroke of a pen, the court removed 330,211 previously completed cases and put them back on the “pending” rolls. These cases were previously administratively closed and had been considered part of the court’s completed caseload[1].

When the pending backlog of cases now on the active docket is added to these newly created pending cases, the total climbs to a whopping 1,098,468 cases! This is more than double the number of cases pending at the beginning of FY 2017.

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

What does the pending case backlog mean as a practical matter? Even before the redefinition of cases counted as closed and cases considered pending, the backlog had reached 768,257 cases. With the rise in the number of immigration judges, case closures during FY 2018 rose 3.9 percent over FY 2016 levels, to 215,569. In FY 2017, however, closure rates had fallen below FY 2016 levels, but last year the court recovered this lost ground[2].

At these completion rates, the court would take 3.6 years to clear its backlog under the old definition if it did nothing but work on pending cases. This assumes that all new cases are placed on the back burner until the backlog is finished.

Now, assuming the court aims to schedule hearings eventually on all the newly defined “pending” cases, the backlog of over a million cases would take 5.1 years to work through at the current pace. This figure again assumes that the court sets aside newly arriving cases and concentrates exclusively on the backlog.

Table 1. Overview of Immigration Court Case Workload and Judges
as of end of FY 2018

Number of
Cases/Judges Percent Change
Since Beginning
of FY 2017

New Cases for FY 2018 287,741 7.5%

Completed Cases for FY 2018 215,569 3.9%

Number of Immigration Judges 338/395* 17.0%

Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:

On Active Docket 768,257 48.9%

Not Presently on Active Docket 330,211 na

Total 1,098,468 112.9%

* Immigration Judges on bench at the beginning and at the end of FY 2018; percent based on increase in judges who served full year.
** category did not exist at the beginning of FY 2017.

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

No single reason accounts for this ballooning backlog. It took years to build and new cases continue to outpace the number of cases completed. This is true even though the ranks of immigration judges since FY 2016 have grown by over 17 percent[3] while court filings during the same period have risen by a more modest 7.5 percent[4].

Clearly the changes the Attorney General has mandated have added to the court’s challenges. For one, the transfer of administratively closed cases to the pending workload makes digging out all the more daunting. At the same time, according to the judges, the new policy that does away with their ability to administratively close cases has reduced their tools for managing their dockets.

There have been other changes. Shifting scheduling priorities produces churning on cases to be heard next. Temporary reassignment and transfer of judges to border courts resulted in additional docket churn. Changing the legal standards to be applied under the Attorney General’s new rulings may also require judicial time to review and implement.

In the end, all these challenges remain and the court’s dockets remain jam-packed. Perhaps when dockets become overcrowded, the very volume of pending cases slows the court’s ability to handle this workload – as when congested highways slow to a crawl.

Footnotes

^[1] The court also recomputed its case completions for the past ten years and removed these from its newly computed completed case counts. Current case closures thus appear to have risen because counts in prior years are suppressed. Further, the extensive judicial resources used in hearing those earlier cases are also disregarded.

^[2] For consistency over time, this comparison is based upon the court’s longstanding definition, which TRAC continues to use, that includes administratively closed cases in each year’s count. Under this standard, numbers are: 207,546 (FY 2016), 204,749 (FY 2017), 215,569 (FY 2018).

^[3] The court reports that the numbers of immigration judges on its rolls at the end of the fiscal year were: 289 (FY 2016), 338 (FY 2017), and 395 (FY 2018). The 17 percent increase only considers judges who were on the payroll for the full FY 2018 year. See Table 1. For more on judge hires see: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download

^[4] New court cases based upon court records as of the end of FY 2018 were: 267,625 (FY 2016), 274,133 (FY 2017), and 287,741 (FY 2018). Due to delays in adding new cases to EOIR’s database, the latest counts may continue to rise when data input is complete. TRAC’s counts use the date of the notice to appear (NTA), rather than the court’s “input date” into its database. While the total number of cases across the FY 2016 – FY 2018 period reported by TRAC and recently published by EOIR are virtually the same, the year-by-year breakdown differs because of the court’s practice of postponing counting a case until it chooses to add them to its docket.

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

	Number of Cases/Judges	Percent Change Since Beginning of FY 2017
New Cases for FY 2018	287,741	7.5%
Completed Cases for FY 2018	215,569	3.9%
Number of Immigration Judges	338/395*	17.0%
Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:
On Active Docket	768,257	48.9%
Not Presently on Active Docket	330,211	na
Total	1,098,468	112.9%

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

Yes, as TRAC notes, it has been building for many years. And there are plenty of places to place responsibility: Congress, the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, the DOJ, DHS, and EOIR itself.

But, there is no way of denying that it has gotten exponentially worse under Sessions. Ideology and intentional “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” as well as the same ineffective “terrorist tactics, threats, intentionally false narratives, inflammatory and demeaning rhetoric, and just plain willful ignorance” that Sessions employs in his immigration enforcement and prosecutorial programs are the main culprits. And, they aren’t going to stop until Sessions and this AdministratIon are removed from the equatIon. Not likely to happen right now.

So, if the Article IIIs don’t step in and essentially put this “bankrupt dysfunctional mess into receivership” by appointing an independent Special Master to run it in accordance with Due Process, fairness, fiscal responsibility, and impartiality, the whole disaster is going to end up in their laps. That will threaten the stability of the entire Federal Court system — apparently just what White Nationalist anarchists like Sessions, Miller, and Bannon have been planning all along!

Wonder if Las Vegas is taking odds on the dates when 1) the backlog will reach 2 million; and 2) the Immigration Court system will completely collapse?

The kakistocracy in action! And, lives will be lost, people hurt, and responsible Government damaged. More judges under Sessions just means more backlog and more injustice.

PWS

11-06-18

CONTEMPT OF COURT: Trump Administration Asks Supremes To Short-Circuit Lower Federal Courts, End DACA!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca/trump-turns-to-supreme-court-to-wind-down-dreamer-immigration-program-idUSKCN1NB01D

Lawrence Hurley and Tom Hals report for Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to allow it to end a program introduced by former President Barack Obama that protects thousands of young immigrants who live in the United States without legal status.

FILE PHOTO: Activists and DACA recipients march up Broadway during the start of their ‘Walk to Stay Home,’ a five-day 250-mile walk from New York to Washington D.C., to demand that Congress pass a Clean Dream Act, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 15, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo

The day before congressional elections in which Trump’s harsh anti-immigration rhetoric has taken center stage, the administration urged the justices to throw out three lower court rulings that blocked Trump’s plan to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The policy has shielded from deportation immigrants dubbed “Dreamers” and given them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.

In a court filing, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the original DACA policy was introduced by Obama administration officials “even though existing laws provided them no ability to do so.” Now, it is lawful for the Department of Homeland Security to change course, he added.

“It is plainly within DHS’s authority to set the nation’s immigration enforcement priorities and to end the discretionary DACA policy,” Francisco said.

The Justice Department’s move was unusually aggressive in terms of procedure, asking the justices to take action even before intermediate federal appeals courts have ruled on the three lower court rulings. The administration says a final ruling is urgently needed.

If the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, agrees to hear the case, a ruling would likely come before the end of June.

Poll: Voter enthusiasm surges among U.S. Hispanics

Trump and his conservative political allies have made his hard-line policies toward immigration a key issue ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections that will determine if his fellow Republicans maintain control of Congress.

The Trump administration has argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he bypassed Congress and created DACA, which offers protections to roughly 700,000 young adults, mostly Hispanics.

The administration is contesting three different district court rulings from judges in California, New York and the District of Columbia that told the administration to continue processing renewals of existing DACA applications while litigation over the legality of Trump’s action is resolved.

Reporting by Tom Hals and Lawrence Hurley, Editing by Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

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

The Administration shows its utter contempt for the Third Branch in two ways:

First, by essentially demanding to skip appealing the District Court orders to the Courts of Appeals, as all other litigants are required to do, they are expressing their contempt for the proper role of the Courts of Appeals;
Second, by publicly indicating that they “own” the Supremes and can get them to short-Circuit the system and do their bidding on demand.

A prudent Court would send Trump packing. Indeed, there is no reason whatsoever to allow the Government to circumvent the legal system here. Given that there are already 750,000 cases in Immigration Court, the 800,000 “Dreamers” aren’t going anywhere. Clearly, the Administration’s claim of “urgency” is totally bogus. Moreover, given the sympathetic circumstances of the Dreamers, there is no reason for the Court to rush on this one. It remains something that Congress eventually will have to solve, no matter how much they might want to avoid doing so.

We’ll see how this one plays out. It will tell us lots about the wisdom, integrity, and courage of the Supremes in the age of Trump.

PWS

11-05-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

And no, no matter how much the GOP appointees might want to do so, the Supremes can’t authorize the President to rewrite the clear terms of the law at his whim.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

“NQRFPT” = “Not Quite Ready for Prime Time” (as some might remember from my days on the bench)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

First, he trashed the 1stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;

Third, while half-heartedly saying he would be willing to work with House Democrats, he then threatened them with retaliation if they had the audacity to exercise their Constitutional authority to investigate him and his corrupt Administration;

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-06-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

Related posts:

Related posts:

First, he trashed the 1^stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;