Courts – Page 203 – immigrationcourtside.com

CNN: The Human Trauma Of Trump’s Executive Orders Begins — Those Who Played By The Rules, Helped America, And Believed in Our Fairness And Humanity Face Potential Detention And Removal!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/index.html

“Lawyers for two Iraqis with ties to the US military who had been granted visas to enter the United States have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the US government after they were detained when they arrived in New York Friday.

The lawsuit could represent the first legal challenge to Trump’s controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called “extreme vetting” of immigrants.
Trump’s order also bars Iraqi citizens, as well as people from six other Muslim-majority nations, from entering the US for 90 days, and suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until it is reinstated “only for nationals of countries for whom” members of Trump’s Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.

According to court papers, both men legally were allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump’s move to ban travel from several Muslim-majority nations.

The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal. They were still at John F. Kennedy International Airport as of late Saturday morning, one of the lawyers told CNN.

“Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights,” the lawyers argue in court papers.
The two Iraqi men named as plaintiffs in the suit are Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who worked as an interpreter for the US during the Iraq War, and Haider Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi. The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was granted the day of Trump’s inauguration on January 20, due to his work for the US government from 2003 to 2013.

The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for their association with the US military.”

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

The CNN report notes that lawsuits challenging the Executive Order have been filed. But as immigration scholar and Clinical Professor Steve Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law states in the full article, the lawsuit is no “slam dunk” given the Executive’s authority over immigration.

Also, these two individual had been approved and actually had visas when the Executive Order was issued. Most individuals “in the pipeline”who have been conditionally approved have not yet been issued visas. So, they won’t even be able to board planes for the United States. Others who actually have visas in hand will probably find that they have been cancelled before they can get on a plane for the U.S.

U.S. Courts have been most reluctant to review actions by the Executive that ostensibly relate to foreign policy, and particularly averse to reviewing actions taken by U.S. officials in foreign countries acting at the direction of the President or the Secretary of State.

Congress could act to attempt to limit or direct the President with respect too refugees. But that’s not going to happen. And, if it did, it would also raise some difficult separation of powers issues

So, when the smoke clears, it is quite possible that NGOs, refugee advocates, and others who oppose the President’s directives on refugees will be without a forum in which to challenge him.

PWS

01/28/17

From “The Week:” Strange Bedfellows — If “Sanctuary Cities” & Migrants’ Advocates Defeat President Trump’s Policies In Court, They Might Owe A Huge Debt To Conservative Judges, Like The Late Justice Antonin Scalia!

http://theweek.com/articles/674498/how-conservative-judges-unintentionally-sabotaged-president-trumps-immigration-crackdown

Self-described “free-market progressive libertarian” Shikha Dalmia writes in The Week:

“But there’s another big cost that will hamstring this sanctuary city crackdown: If he can’t command local cooperation by threatening to cut funds, then President Trump also can’t de facto deputize local law enforcement agents. So he will have to cough up large sums of federal money to triple the size of the federal deportation force that would be required to eject millions of additional people.

And that will also mean bad optics, because without cooperative local authorities, President Trump will not be able to order ICE agents to whisk away all of these folks quietly in the dead of the night, shielded from media cameras. Instead, he’ll have to start raiding schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces, which will make for terrible publicity.

Whether Trump will go that far remains to be seen. But thanks primarily to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, it’ll be very hard for him to do so. And that gives undocumented workers far more of a chance than if they had to depend only on the good intentions of local liberal politicians.

The irony is that these immigrants would be in much bigger trouble if Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with her liberal colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had prevailed in the ObamaCare ruling, as many liberals had hoped at the time. They were completely on board with ObamaCare’s efforts to use federal funds to strong-arm states.

So what’s the lesson? That standing up for bedrock checks and balances is a far better protector of vulnerable minorities than do-gooding liberal politics.”

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

I’ve written before that the Trump Administration might not get the anticipated “free pass” to bash migrants that they apparently anticipate from Republican appointees on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and a conservative majority Supreme Court. Leaving aside “hot button” or “litmus test” issues like abortion, doctrinal conservatives often have great Constitutional reservations about the unbridled use of Executive Power. Indeed, doctrinal conservatism at some point comes close to libertarianism, and libertarianism has some things in common with liberalism.

Thus, at some point in my career, I found myself sitting at a Cato Institute Seminar and nodding in agreement when none other than Grover Norquist described his essentially “free market” approach to migration and border enforcement issues.

In the end, the fact that independent Article III judges, conservative, liberal, middle of the roaders, Republicans, and Democrats, freed of political control, will deliberatively decide what the law requires could turn out to be a bigger problem for the Trump Administration than they had anticipated.

PWS

01/27/17

Fox News: Text Of President Trump’s Executive Order On Interior Enforcement!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html

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

Wow! Incredibly broad! Probably easier to determine what isn’t a priority (offhand, I’d say something like “undocumented migrants already in the United States who have lived lives completely free from any run-ins with the law” — and, there are definitely quite a few of those) than what is!

Unlike the Border Enforcement Executive Order, which specifically requires detention of arriving migrants with very narrow, case-by-case, exceptions, this order does not specifically direct immigration officials to detain all interior removal “priorities.” But, it certainly is implicit in the President’s Order that all of the stated removal priorities “present a significant threat to national security and public safety.” That’s probably going to result in at least a de facto “presumption of detention” in all priority cases. And, regulations, precedents, or other directives from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General could specifically establish such a presumption.

So, everyone arriving at the border without documentation is a priority and will be thrown in detention. And, everyone in the interior who is undocumented and has ever been arrested, charged, or committed any crime, no matter how minor, and regardless of whether convicted, will also be prioritized, and most of them will be thrown in detention.

Consequently, almost everybody in Immigration Court will be a “Detained Priority” or an “Enforcement Priority” of some type. That’s going to mean yet another massive re-shuffling of dockets.

And, since almost everyone will be detained, there will be even more excruciating pressure on already stressed and overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to “move” these cases, without much regard to due process, because detention will be costing a fortune (and the Supremes well might place a limit on the duration of “pre-hearing” detention).

In that case, why would anybody interested in being a “real” judge who isn’t already in the system and not eligible to retire, want the Immigration Judge’s job? Yes, I’m sure that there will be many lawyers out there who need jobs and will apply. But, they are likely to be those who see being a “judge” in the Executive Branch under such circumstances as a law enforcement position, rather than a chance to be an impartial “umpire,” scholar, or dispenser of balanced and deliberative due process.

Perhaps, the initiative will be a huge enforcement success; the Article III Courts will sign on and basically dispense with any semblance of “normal” due process for migrants, thus allowing them essentially to be railroaded out of the U.S. Obviously, that’s what the Administration is counting on.

Alternatively, however, the Article III Courts might “dig in” and insist on scrupulously fair hearings, thereby essentially grinding all enforcement to a halt and forcing massive “re-dos” of already “expedited” and “prioritized” cases. In that event, the initiative will turn out to be a colossal and incredibly expensive failure.

I suspect that the Supremes will have to sort this out in the fairly near future. In the past, a Supreme Court with the late Justice Antonin Scalia sitting frequently vindicated the rights of migrants against attempted Government overreaching by Administrations of both parties. So, it’s by no means a “given” that a Supreme Court with a disciple of Justice Scalia as the new Justice would necessarily endorse all aspects of the President’s enforcement initiatives. We’ll just have to wait and see.

And, surprisingly, particularly to those who think that this is a “great” idea, the answer may affect the due process rights of more than just migrants. You never know when you yourself might be in need of a little due process. It often happens to those who least expect it.

Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” not only is it a great time not to be a refugee, but it’s a really great time to be retired from the USG (and, the U.S. Immigration Court, in particular).

PWS

01/25/17

Fifth Circuit Says CAT “Government Acquiescence” Not Not Limited to “Willful Blindness”

Here’s the full text of the decision IRUEGAS-VALDEZ v. YATES:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60532-CV0.pdf

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

Basically, the Fifth Circuit (hardly a pro migrant forum) requires the BIA and the Immigration Judge to follow the Federal Regulations on the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Ever since the CAT became the effective, the BIA and the Attorney General have worked hard to restrict protection based on torture. But, little by little, almost all of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have been chipping away at these overly restrictive interpretations.

Here, the Fifth Circuit points out that in its haste to affirm the Immigration Judge and deny protection, the BIA failed to apply the Executive’s own regulations, which allow for the granting of protection in a significantly larger set of circumstances, particularly where corrupt government officials act “under color of law,” than the Board and the Attorney General have been willing to admit.

Because torture by or with the acquiescence of foreign government officials is widespread in many refugee sending countries, and because the CAT has no specific “nexus” requirement that the torture be tied to any specific “protected ground,” the CAT has the potential to become a much more useful means of gaining needed protection as the law develops. And, because CAT protection does not give individuals “green cards” of put them on the “path to citizenship” (although it usually does provide work authorization), it might be a compromise between returning individuals to countries where their lives would be in danger and creating an incentive for those who seek permanent status in the U.S.

As I used to tell individuals before me who wanted asylum but had to settle for CAT protection, “all it does is save your life.” Depending on how important one considers his or her life, that might significant.

PWS

01/24/17

VOX News: Supreme Short List — Trump To Go With A U.S. Appeals Judge — Judges Gorsuch (10th C), Hardiman (3rd C), & Pryor (11th C) Top List!

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/24/14372842/donald-trump-supreme-court-gorsuch-hardiman-pryor

“Now, Politico’s Eliana Johnson and Shane Goldmacher report that Trump has narrowed the choices to three, all of whom are on federal appeals courts:

Neil Gorsuch, 49, of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma)
Thomas Hardiman, 51, of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)
William “Bill” Pryor, 54, of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida)
Johnson and Goldmacher report that Gorsuch and Hardiman have an advantage and Pryor’s chances have waned.

All three finalists are white men appointed to their posts by George W. Bush, but they vary in background and in how contention [sic] their nominations would likely be.”

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

Read full bios of all three judges at the above link. Reportedly, after the Republicans “stonewalled” the Garland nomination, the Democrats are not going to be racing to complete the confirmation process for the late conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalias’s replacement. But, in the end, the Republicans have the votes to put President Trump’s nominee on the Court. And, given that all three of these judges have been previously vetted and confirmed for prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals judgeships, barring any surprises, President Trump will get his choice.

Interestingly, I heard on a news report today that the average time lapse between formal nomination and confirmation for a Supreme Court Justice is 70 days. Compare that the with the snail-paced hiring process for U.S. Immigration Judges who are Executive Branch employees and do not require Senate confirmation.

The U.S. Immigration Judge hiring process sometimes takes a year or more. While in the past judicial hiring was sometimes completed in 70 days or less, those days are long gone. What’s the deal here? Most of the recent Immigration Judge appointees have been from Government backgrounds and already had security clearances. And, background clearances, although important, are basically a ministerial/administrative process, not “rocket science.” With more than half a million pending cases and many judicial vacancies (which might or might not be frozen) there remarkably does not seem to be any sense of urgency in the DOJ/EOIR judicial hiring process. Go figure!

PWS

01/24/17

Rivkin & Grossman In WSJ: Why Captive Administrative Courts Are “Built To Fail” In Delivering Due Process!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-is-a-judge-not-really-a-judge-1485215998

David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman write in the WSJ:

“Administrative law judges are agency employees. The proceedings they oversee provide fewer protections than court cases. They also tend to set stern deadlines and limit the right to factual investigation, often leaving defendants to rely on the SEC’s evidence. According to a 2015 Wall Street Journal analysis, the agency’s shift paid off: Through the beginning of that year, it won 90% of cases in its in-house court, compared with 69% of regular court cases. Administrative decisions can be appealed to court but are rarely reversed. That’s because the judges apply a deferential “clear error” standard to the agency’s factual findings.

The due-process problems inherent in this arrangement are apparent. Less obvious, at least to the SEC, is that it also violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires Senate hearings and confirmation votes for department heads and other senior officials. To promote political accountability, the Constitution also requires that “inferior officers” with significant responsibility be appointed by the president or senior officials who are confirmed by the Senate.”

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

Although Rivkin and Grossman were writing about Administrative Law Judges within the SEC, most of the same arguments could be made about U.S. Immigration Judges within the Department of Justice.

The article suggests that if successful, challenges to the existing administrative judiciary in the Article III Courts might bring down the entire 80-year largely failed experiment with specialized administrative courts attempting to mete out justice within the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch. That, in turn, would require the creation of more truly independent specialized courts, such as the Tax Court and the Bankruptcy Court, and/or the transfer of many additional cases to the Article III Courts, where they perhaps could be handled by appointing more U.S. Magistrate Judges.

PWS

01/24/17

Judge Posner, Split 7th Circuit, Slam IJ, BIA On Denial Of Protection To Honduran With HIV!

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D01-19/C:15-2619:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1898108:S:0

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

The case, full text at the above link, is VELASQUEZ‐BANEGAS, v. LYNCH.

I agree with Judge Posner’s bottom line that protection should have been granted on this record. But, I think that he was overly harsh on the Immigration Judge.

These would be difficult cases for any judge at any level of our system. One of the significant problems is that the Appellate Division of the Immigration Court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has failed to provide adequate positive guidance on granting protection.

The overwhelming number of BIA precedent cases dealing with asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture are denials by the BIA. But, even with asylum grant levels leveling off and actually falling slightly over the past several years, the majority of applicants for protection actually qualify for some form of relief at the trial level based on fear of persecution or torture.

The unnecessarily negative approach of the BIA in its precedent decisions both gives a misleading negative guidance to Immigration Judges and creates the impression with U.S. Court of Appeals Judges that the system is even more skewed against applicants than it actually is.

Although I agreed with the majority in Velasquez, I think that the concluding paragraph of the Judge Ripple’s dissent also makes some good points:

“Immigration cases always pose a special burden on United States judges. As Jacques Maritain so eloquently put it: “We are all wounded souls.” See Jacques Maritain, Réflexions sur lʹAmerique 87–91 (1958). Every American, including every United States judge, has a family memory that includes ancestors who came from some place where life was not as good as it is here. The DNA of our national character makes it very difficult to tell an individual that he cannot enjoy the same liberty, safety, and security that we enjoy. When the individual suffers from a medical condition that cannot be treated as well in the country to which he is returned, basic humanitarian values make the task even more difficult. No doubt, those who must make necessary policy choices and those who must enforce those choices feel, or should feel, that same angst. But immigration must be regulated, and, in this Country, national policy is set by Congress and enforced by the Executive. Our own task as judges is limited. Because the immigration judge’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence, I respectfully dissent.”

Food for thought.

PWS

01/23/17

Uniting America, Trump Style — I Never Found Much Common Ground With George Will (Except, Sometimes, On Baseball) — But, I Woke Up The Morning After To Find We Were “Brothers!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/01/20/a-most-dreadful-inaugural-address/?utm_term=.36d0d9ef923f

George Will writes in the op-ed page of today’s Washington Post:

“A most dreadful inaugural address
Trump’s inaugural address in three minutes

Play Video2:59

On Jan. 20, 2017, President Trump took the oath of office, pledging in his inaugural address to embark on a strategy of “America first.” Here are key moments from that speech. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Twenty minutes into his presidency, Donald Trump, who is always claiming to have made, or to be about to make, astonishing history, had done so. Living down to expectations, he had delivered the most dreadful inaugural address in history.

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s White House counselor, had promised that the speech would be “elegant.” This is not the adjective that came to mind as he described “American carnage.” That was a phrase the likes of which has never hitherto been spoken at an inauguration.

Oblivious to the moment and the setting, the always remarkable Trump proved that something dystopian can be strangely exhilarating: In what should have been a civic liturgy serving national unity and confidence, he vindicated his severest critics by serving up reheated campaign rhetoric about “rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape” and an education system producing students “deprived of all knowledge.” Yes, all.
But cheer up, because the carnage will vanish if we “follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.” “Simple” is the right word.

Because in 1981 the inauguration ceremony for a cheerful man from the American West was moved from the Capitol’s East Portico to its West Front, Trump stood facing west, down the Mall with its stately monuments celebrating some of those who made America great — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. Looking out toward where the fields of the republic roll on, Trump, a Gatsby-for-our-time, said: “What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people.” Well.

“A dependence on the people,” James Madison wrote, “is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” He meant the checks and balances of our constitutional architecture. They are necessary because, as Madison anticipated and as the nation was reminded on Friday, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”

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

Right on, George, you “nailed” it this time!

And, he was by no means the only one. Perhaps predictably, the “headliner” on the lead Washington Post Editorial was: “In his inaugural address, Trump leaves America’s better angels behind.” Wow, how “presidential” does it get?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-his-inaugural-address-trump-leaves-americas-better-angels-behind/2017/01/20/d0f06378-df40-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.a2e4249340c

Even the Wall Street Journal, by no means a shill for progressive liberalism, had to remark on President Trump’s complete failure to acknowledge the Constitutional limits on his power or to recognize that he will need to work with another Constitutional Branch of Government, the U.S. Congress (and, probably not just the Republicans there) to get things accomplished. And, in the spirit of the “new unity,” I acknowledge that the Wall Street Journal has always had a very clear understanding of the essential contributions of immigrants, regardless of status upon arrival, to America’s economic, social, and political success. Although I often disagree with its stances, I find that the Journal’s overall optimism about America and our future stands in stark contrast to the dark, sinister caricature of America set forth by President Trump yesterday.

Here is the link to the WSJ editorial:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-populist-manifesto-1484957386

Remarkably, President Trump appears to view himself as not just the representative of the American people (which, as President, he is) but also the very embodiment of the American people. That’s a very odd assertion for a leader who came into power while losing the popular vote by 2.8 million. Such appeals to narrow, totally self-interested nationalism are not new for world leaders past and present; however, they are seldom heard from leaders of true republican democracies. Does President Trump really understand how unbridled nationalism caused two disastrous world wars along with genocides and mass political exterminations during the past century?

Even more disturbing, President Trump’s definition of the “American people” seems inappropriately narrow: it excludes not only the majority of American voters who favored his opponent, but also doesn’t appear to fully acknowledge the existence of many Americans who can’t vote, such as children and, in particular, immigrants, regardless of status, whose interests, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, are entitled, along with those of other non-voters, to fair representation by our elected officials all the way up to our President. That’s why the Supreme Court upheld apportionment by total population, not just the population of U.S. citizens or registered voters. For example, the large number of electoral votes that President Trump picked up in Texas owes, in no small measure, to the large number of immigrants, legal and undocumented, who have fueled Texas’s overall population surge at the expense of other states in the East and Midwest with dwindling populations.

I try to remain optimistic. I approach the news each day with the hope, however slim, that I will discover some evidence that our President understands the real America out there and his responsibilities to represent and inspire all Americans, not just the minority who happen to agree with him. (I also heard and read enough “anecdotal” interviews with Trump voters after the election to know that some of them don’t necessarily share his dark and exclusive vision of America; they just want some change and hope that as a successful businessman President Trump will bring them and their communities at least some of the same material success that he has accumulated over a lifetime.)

But, as one of my “around 70” friends said to me recently, “Schmidt, at our ages we are what we are; what you see is pretty much what you get.” And, President Trump has been around even longer than we have. That’s something that might not bode well for the real America out there. We’ll just have to hope for the best, for all Americans.

Celebrate the really great America, every day!

Due process forever!

PWS

01/21/17

Quartz Media Reporter Ana Campoy “Nails” The Obama Administration’s Failed Southern Border Strategy — “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.” (Quoting Me)

THE LAW IS THE LAW
The US doesn’t have an immigration problem—it has a refugee problem
Ana Campoy January 18, 2017

http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.170117.html

Quote boxes:

“In fact, Trump’s fixation with blocking illegal immigration from Mexico, which has plummeted in recent years, obfuscates the problem. Yes, border patrol agents are apprehending thousands of people every month along the US-Mexico line, but many of them—around half, according to Claire McCaskill, a member of the US Senate’s homeland security and governmental affairs committee—turn themselves in voluntarily asking for help. Government statistics bear this out. The number of immigrants claiming fear of persecution or torture in their home countries is on the rise, and so are the findings that those claims are credible. In order to be considered for asylum by an immigration judge, immigrants first have to go through a “credible fear” screening, in which an asylum officer determines whether the claims they are making have a “significant possibility” of holding up in court.

More than 70% of those who claimed credible fear in the 2016 fiscal year hailed from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, places beset by rampant violence.

Under US law, individuals who are found to have credible fear have the right to due process to determine the validity of their claims in the court. Whether they are Syrians escaping civil war, or El Salvadorans fleeing from criminal gangs, what they have to prove is the same: that they face persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

But US authorities don’t always take Central American immigrants’ fears seriously, studies suggest. One, released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2016, found that not all border patrol agents are asking immigrants if they’re afraid to return to their country, as they are required to do. Other agents refuse to believe them, per the report, which is based on immigrant testimony documented by the group. Another 2016 analysis, by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory body, noted, “outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims” by certain officers, among other practices that may be resulting in deportations of refugees with a legitimate right to stay.

A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesman said the agency “strives to treat every person we encounter with dignity and respect.” Anyone with concerns about the treatment doled out by its officers can call the agency, he added.”

. . . .

“The Obama administration’s response has already run up against the law. For example, several courts have shot down the government’s arguments and efforts to justify the detention of children and families while their cases wait to be resolved—a policy meant to convince would-be immigrants to stay home.

On Jan. 13, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accusing CBP officers of turning back people requesting asylum at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border. In what the groups called an “alarming new trend,” the officers have allegedly been telling immigrants that they can’t enter the country without a visa— contrary to US law—and referring them to Mexican immigration authorities.

Trump has framed his border policy as a choice between enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration or skirting them. But the decision facing US leaders is rather more complicated: Should the US continue providing refuge to those who are unfairly persecuted in their home countries?

If Americans are unwilling to do that, perhaps it’s time to do away with the nation’s asylum laws—and remove the famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty welcoming the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Recently retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt put it this way: “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.”

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

In my view, Ana Campoy provides a remarkably clear and well-documented analysis of why the Obama Administration’s “get tough” border policies have failed, and why the Trump Administration would be wise to take a more “nuanced” approach that recognizes our obligation to provide due process and protection under our laws to individuals fleeing from the Northern Triangle.

As incoming DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly has recognized, this problem can’t be solved just by (even more) enhanced enforcement on our end. It will require addressing the systemic problems in the sending countries of the Northern Triangle, which certainly have most of the characteristics of “failed states,” as well as working with other stable democratic nations in the Americas to fashion meaningful protections, inside or outside the asylum system, for those who are likely to face torture, death, or other types of clear human rights abuses if returned to the Northern Triangle at present.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, and there are no “silver bullets.” But, we know what doesn’t work. So, it sure seems like it would be a good idea to try different approaches (and I don’t mean repealing asylum protections as Ana, somewhat facetiously suggests near the end of her article).

PWS

01/19/17

USG Bid To Max Criminal Deportation Law May Be On The Rocks Before The Supremes!

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-supreme-court-deport-burglars-20170117-story.html

David G. Savage writes in the L.A. Times:

“The law in this area is not entirely clear. Beginning in 1988, Congress ordered deportation for noncitizens who are convicted of an “aggravated felony,” and it cited specific examples such as murder and rape. Later the law was expanded to include a general category of “crimes of violence.” This was defined to include offenses that involve a use of physical force or a “substantial risk” that force would be used.

Judges have been divided as to what crimes call for deportation. Looming over Tuesday’s argument was an opinion written two years ago by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. He spoke for an 8-to-1 majority in striking down part of a federal law known as the Armed Career Criminal Act. It called for extra years in prison for people convicted of more than one violent felony.

In that case, the extra prison term was triggered by the defendant’s possession of a shotgun. In frustration, Scalia and his colleagues said the law was unconstitutionally vague because they could not decide whether gun possession is itself evidence of a violent crime.

“You could say the exact same thing about burglary,” Justice Elena Kagan said Tuesday. A midday burglary of a home could result in violence, she said, but perhaps not if it were an empty garage or an abandoned house. “So it seems like we’re replicating the same kind of confusion,” she said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said judges have no way to decide which crimes typically or usually involve violence. “We’re just left guessing,” he said, suggesting a better approach would be “look at what the person did.”

But Deputy Solicitor Gen. Edwin Kneedler said a home burglary poses a risk of violence. And he said the court should defer to the government on matters of immigration. The law, he said, calls for a “broad delegation” of authority to executive officials.

This is the argument government lawyers made in defense of President Obama’s use of executive authority to try to shield millions of immigrants from deportation. It is also the argument that would call for upholding an aggressive deportation policy if pursued by the Trump administration.”

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

Interesting juxtaposition here! The key opinion relied on by the immigrant is an 8-1 decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), written by conservative judicial icon Justice Antonin Scalia in which he ripped apart on constitutional vagueness grounds a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act that is virtually identical to the deportation statute.

The Obama Administration reacted by vigorously reasserting in the lower courts and the Immigration Courts its right to ignore Justice Scalia’s reasoning in the civil deportation context and continue to deport individuals convicted of residential burglary.

But, liberal judicial icon Judge Stephen Reinhardt and one of his colleagues on the Ninth Court of Appeals seized on Scalia’s opinion and applied it to the immigration law to block such deportations. The Seventh Circuit followed suit, but the Fifth Circuit did not, thereby setting up a “circuit split” — something that often convinces the Supreme Court to exercise its discretionary authority to intervene by granting a “writ of certiorari.”

The case is Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 which, as pointed out by David Savage, will soon morph into Sessions v. Dimaya. Stay tuned for the results!

Did you know that: The Government’s lawyer in Dimaya, career Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, a friend and an outstanding public servant, has argued more than 125 U.S. Supreme Court cases during his distinguished Government career, more than any other living lawyer!

Wow! Most lawyers would feel lucky and privileged to argue a single case before the Supreme Court. I know I sure would. Just think of the hours of preparation spent in preparing to argue well over 100 cases!

When I was Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel of the Legacy INS, I used to help the Solicitor General’s Office prepare for oral arguments in immigration cases. So, I know how intensive the preparation process is.

At least once, I was asked to sit with the Deputy SG arguing the case at counsel table in the Court. That was as close as I ever got to appearing before the Court.

I remember one case that I observed — I can’t remember if I was at counsel table or in the audience — was the immigration classic INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) establishing the generous “well-founded fear = reasonable likelihood” standard for asylum, which I ended up having to apply thousands of times as a trial and appellate judge in the Immigration Courts. That day, however, we were on the “losing” side of the argument, having presented the case for a more stringent standard. Nevertheless, I think the Court got it completely right.

The “winning” lawyer before the Court that day was a young immigration attorney from San Francisco, Dana Marks Keener, now known as Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court and the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges. Since then, of course, Dana and I have become judicial colleagues and great friends. I often refer to her as “the founding mother of modern U.S. asylum law.”

Small world.

PWS

01/18/17

Another Installment In The Schmidt Making America Really Great Series: “Refugees And Due Process Make America Really Great” — Read My Speech From Last Night’s “Refugee Ball”

REFUGEES AND DUE PROCESS MAKE AMERICA REALLY GREAT

Remarks by Paul Wickham Schmidt,

Retired United States Immigration Judge

The Refugee Ball

Sixth & I Synagogue 600 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 from 5:00 to 9:00 PM

Good evening, everyone. I’m honored to be here. Lets have a big round of applause for Jason Dzubow and his staff for coming up with the idea and putting this together!

As you can probably tell, it was a battle getting into my “Jones Day Spring Prom Era Tux” tonight. As I walked out the door, my wife Cathy said: “Are you actually going to be able to breathe, let alone speak, in that thing?”

As a “regular” at the Arlington Immigration Court, Jason obviously is quite familiar with my habits. I noted that on the advance program he took the extreme precaution of not only putting me in a “10-minute slot” near the end of the program, but also adding in parentheses in big bold letters “10 minutes max.” So, I get the picture, Jason. I’m going to briefly address two things that make America great: refugees and due process.

I’m pleased to back in the old ‘hood, although it’s hard to recognize. For about twelve years in the 1970s and 1980s I worked in the General Counsel’s Office of the “Legacy INS” in the famous Chester Arthur Building – the only monument in Washington to our great 21^st President –— at 425 Eye St., NW, just down the street. And, one of my most memorable accomplishments during that time was being part of the “team” that helped the Refugee Act of 1980 become law. It was a chance to make a positive difference in America’s future, indeed in the world’s future, while coming into contact with some of the finest intellects in the business: David Martin, Alex Aleinikoff, Doris Meissner, the late Jerry Tinker, and the late Jack Perkins come immediately to mind. So, I have what you might call a “vested interest” in U.S. refugee and asylum system.

I worked with refugees and their cases almost every workday for more than 21 years during my tenure as a trial and appellate judge with the United States Immigration Courts. And, I’ll admit that on many of my “off days” the challenges, stories, human drama, triumph, and trauma of refugees and refugee law bounced around in my head, much to the dismay of my wonderful wife, Cathy.

Although I have the greatest respect and admiration for the inspiring life stories of refugees and their contributions to the United States, I have never, for even one second, wanted to be a refugee. Like all of the speakers tonight, I see refugees as a huge asset to our country. It says something about us as a nation that so many great people from all over the world want to make this their home and to contribute their talents, some of which were on display here tonight, to the greatness of America. So, to all of you out there who came as refugees or asylees, thank you for coming, for your service, and for your dedication to making our great country even greater.

The other topic I want to address briefly, that is near and dear to me personally, is the overriding importance of due process in our refugee and asylum system. Each of you who came as a refugee or asylee is here because an adjudicator at some level of our system carefully and fairly gave you a chance to state your claim, listened to and reviewed the support you provided for your claim, and made a favorable decision in your case.

For some of you, that decision was made by a DHS Refugee Officer or an Asylum Officer. Others of you had to rely on different levels of our system – a U.S. Immigration Judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or in some cases, a U.S. Court of Appeals to have your status granted. In all of these instances you received something very precious under our Constitution: due process of law.

Unfortunately, there currently is a “due process crisis” in our overloaded Immigration Court System. With over one-half million pending cases and waiting times of many years in some courts for final hearings to be held, our Immigration Court System is under intense pressure.

Sometimes, that results in approaches that generally have a favorable impact for individuals seeking protection. For example, grants of Temporary Protected Status and work authorization take many cases off the Immigration Court docket and legislation such as NACARA for Central Americans or HIRIFA for Haitians permanently resolves many cases favorably at the DHS without requiring a full-blown asylum hearing before an U.S. Immigration Judge.

But, when backlogs build up and enforcement pressures mount on our Government, less benign approaches and suggestions sometimes come to the fore. Adjudicators can be pressured to do counterproductive things like decide more cases in less time, limit evidence to shorten hearings, and make “blanket denials” based on supposed improvements in country conditions.

Other times, placing more individuals in civil immigration detention is looked at as a way of both expediting case processing and actively discouraging individuals from coming to the United States and making claims for refuge under our laws in the first place. Or, moving cases though the system so quickly that applicants can’t find pro bono lawyers to represent them is sometimes incorrectly viewed as an acceptable method for shortening adjudication times, thereby reducing backlogs.

Another method far too often used for discouraging asylum claims and inhibiting due process is placing asylum applicants in DHS Detention Centers, often privately operated, with “imbedded” Immigration Courts in obscure out of the way locations like Dilley, Texas and Lumpkin, Georgia where access to pro bono attorneys, family members, and other sources of support is severely limited or nonexistent.

When these things happen, due process suffers. So, while I’m always hoping for the best, it is critical for all of us in this room to zealously protect the due process rights of all migrants and insist on full due process being maintained, and, ideally, even enhanced. This includes both supporting individuals in the system by helping them obtain effective legal representation and, where appropriate, vigorously asserting the due process rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants in the Article III Federal Courts.

Only by insisting on due process for those already in the system will we be able to insure a fair and effective system for future refugees. And, welcoming and fairly treating future refugees is a key to making and keeping America great.

So, that’s my message: due process can’t be taken for granted! It must be nurtured, protected, expanded, and vigorously and proudly asserted! Thanks for listening, good luck, do great things, and due process forever!

(Rev. 01/18/17)

Why The U.S. Immigration Court In NYC Is Overwhelmed: Listen & Read WNYC/NPR Senior Reporter Beth Fertig’s Report (Quoting Me) Here! Without Reforms, Due Process Is In Peril! Why Not “Give Due Process A Chance?”

http://www.wnyc.org/story/why-new-yorks-immigration-courts-are-so-busy/

“This is why experts say it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump deporting more criminal immigrants than Obama. “I think this administration already takes a fairly broad view of who is a criminal,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was an immigration judge in Arlington, Virginia for 13 years.

Trump has claimed there are two to three million undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions. The government has said that number is actually just below 2 million and includes non-citizens who are in the country legally (like Bilanicz), as well as undocumented immigrants.

The government has put more resources into immigration enforcement. But Schmidt said it hasn’t done enough to help the court system meet the growing demand. There were fewer than 300 immigration judges for the whole country last year, and they were hearing more than 220,000 cases. Schmidt said even 100 additional judges would barely keep up with incoming cases, let alone the backlog.

“If you start doing the half million cases that are pending then you’re going to fall behind on the incoming cases,” he said.

. . . .

Judges have also complained that the government fast-tracked unaccompanied minors and families from Central America and Mexico who crossed the border in a “surge” a couple of years ago. These recent arrivals got priority over immigrants who had been waiting years for their hearings or trials, leading to bigger backlogs.

. . . .

The whole [Master Calendar] process took about five minutes for each case, and [Judge Amiena] Khan was scheduling future court appearances as late as August of 2018. This isn’t so bad given, that Schmidt said he was scheduling hearings for 2021 before retiring last summer. But one lawyer in court that morning, Shihao Bao, agreed the system couldn’t possibly handle more cases unless Trump wanted to “take away due process.”

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

To paraphrase Chief Justice John Robert’s spot-on observation in the immigration case Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 421 (2009), providing due process in an individual case takes time: “[S]ometimes a little; sometimes a lot.” As I have said numerous times on this blog, the “just peddle faster approach” to due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts, unsuccessfully tried by past Administrations, isn’t going to “cut it” for due process.

And, cutting corners is sure to be more expensive to the taxpayers in the long run when Article III U.S. Courts of Appeals inevitably intervene and use their independent authority to stop the “assembly line” approach to justice and force the return of numerous cases to the Immigration Courts for “redos,” sometimes before different Immigration Judges.

I’m relatively certain that some of the Ashcroft-era cases “bounced back” by the Courts of Appeals are still kicking around the Immigration Courts somewhere without any final resolutions. With the help of the local immigration bar and the ICE Office of Chief Counsel I finished up a fair number of these “oldies” myself during my time at the Arlington Immigration Court. By the time the cases finally got to my Individual Hearing calendar, most of the individuals involved had qualified for relief from removal or, alternatively, had established lengthy records of good behavior, tax payment, contributions to the community, and U.S. family ties that made them “low priorities” for enforcement and resulted in an offer of “prosecutorial discretion” from the Assistant Chief Counsel.

In the Arlington Immigration Court, the Office of Chief Counsel had a strong sense of justice and practicality and was a huge force in helping to get “low priority” cases off the docket whenever possible consistent with the needs and policies of their DHS client. But, I know that the Offices of Chief Counsel in other areas did not perform at the same consistently high level.

Rather than having enforcement efforts stymied and having to redo cases time and time again to get them right, why not invest in providing really great fairness and due process at the “retail level” of our justice system: the United States Immigration Courts? Getting it right in the Immigration Courts would not only save time and money in the long run by reducing appeals, petitions for review, and actions for injunctions directed to higher courts, but would also produce a due process oriented Immigration Court system we could all be proud of, that would have great credibility, and that would serve as an inspiring example of “best practices” to other courts and even to immigration systems in other countries. After all, the “vision” of the U.S. Immigration Courts is supposed to be: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Why not “give due process a chance?”

PWS

01/17/17

Rappaport — Trump Will Inherit A Mess In the U.S. Immigration Courts — Former GOP Hill Staffer Peter Levinson Tells Us In One Sentence Why The Current System Is “Built To Fail” — Can Anyone Fix this Mess Before It’s Too Late For Our Country And The Millions Whose Lives And Futures Depend Our Immigration Court’s Ability To Guarantee Fairness And Deliver Due Process? Read My Commentary — “We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?” — Below!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/314238-our-immigration-court-crisis-will-be-trumps-lasting-headache

We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Writing in The Hill, my friend Nolan Rappaport says:

“President-elect Donald Trump will have to deal with this situation before he can begin his promised enforcement program.
Realistically, he is going to have to consider asking Congress for a legalization program to reduce the undocumented population but it does not have to be the kind of legalization program that the Democrats have been proposing.”

That makes lots of sense to me. It will certainly help the Immigration Courts to quickly remove many “non priority” cases from the docket without compromising due process. But, it’s not a complete solution to the problems facing our Immigration Courts.

And, well-respected scholar, gentleman, and former GOP Hill Immigration Staffer Peter Levinsion succinctly tells us why just fiddling around with the administrative process within the DOJ won’t get the job done:

“”The Attorney General’s ability to review Board decisions inappropriately injects a law enforcement official into a quasi-judicial appellate process, creates an unnecessary layer of review, compromises the appearance of independent Board decision-making, and undermines the Board’s stature generally.””

Yup, folks, the U.S. Immigration Courts, including the all-important Appellate Division (the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the “BIA”), where hundreds of thousands of individuals are awaiting the fair, independent due process hearings guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution, are actually a wholly owned subsidiary of the chief prosecutor and law enforcement officer of the U.S. — the Attorney General.

Who wouldn’t like to own a court system where your only client — the U.S. Government — is an interested party in every single case? Who wouldn’t, indeed, unless that court system is in the sad circumstances of the current U.S. Immigration Court system — overworked, understaffed, over-prioritized, under-appreciated, laboring under outdated systems and technology abandoned by most other courts decades ago, and generally out of control. Other than that, what’s the problem?

The answer, as proposed by Nolan and Peter, and many others including the Federal Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and many other nonpartisan judicial experts is an independent Article I (or even Article III) Immigration Court, including the Appellate Division.

“Impossible,” you say, “Congress and President Trump will never go for it. Nobody in the Washington ‘power curve’ could sell this idea.” But, I beg to disagree.

There is one person in Washington who could sell this long overdue idea to President Trump and legislators from both sides of the aisle. His name is Jeff Sessions. And, he’s about to become the next Attorney General of the United Sates.

Why would Attorney General Jeff Sessions suddenly become an advocate for due process and “good government?” Well, I can think of at least three obvious reasons.

First, being the “father” of an Article I Immigration Court would be a lasting positive contribution to our system of justice — not a bad legacy for a man who has been “on the wrong side of history” for much of his four decades of public service. Second, it would silence many of the critics who have doubted Sessions’s claims that he can overcome his “out of the mainstream” views of the past and protect and vindicate the rights of everyone in America, particularly in the sensitive areas of immigration and civil rights. Third, and perhaps most important, by creating an independent, credible, modern, due process oriented Immigration Court outside the Department of Justice, Sessions would pave the way for a more effective immigration enforcement strategy by the Administration while dramatically increasing the likelihood that removal orders will pass muster in the Article III Courts.

Sure sounds like a “win-win-win” to me. I’ve observed that the majority of the time, people act in accordance with their own best interests which frequently line up with the best interests of our country as a whole. Yes, there will always be a substantial minority of instances where people act against their best interests. Usually, that’s when they are blinded by an uncompromising philosophy or personal animus.

I can’t find much of the latter in Senator Sessions. He seems like a genuinely genial personality who makes it a point to get along with folks and treat them politely even when they disagree with his views. The former could be a problem for Sessions, however. Can he get beyond his highly restrictive outlook on immigration and adopt big-picture reforms? Only time will tell. But there is a precedent.

EOIR was actually created during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. It was two “strong enforcement types,” then INS Commissioner Al Nelson and General Counsel “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr., part of the so-called “California Mafia,” who persuaded then Attorney General William French Smith to remove the Immigration Judges from the “Legacy INS,” and combine them with the Board of Immigration Appeals to form EOIR, with then-BIA Chairman David Milhollan as the first EOIR Director. Smith selected as the first Chief Immigration Judge a well-respected (even if not universally beloved) apolitical Senior Executive, William R. Robie, who had run the Department’s Office of Attorney Personnel Management and had a well-deserved reputation in the Washington legal community for “getting the trains running on time.”

It was one of the few times in my more that three decades in Government that I witnessed Senior Political Executives actually arguing for a needed transfer of functions and personnel out of their own agency. Traditionally, agency heads battled furiously to hang on to any piece of “turf,” no matter how problematic its performance or how tangental it was to the agency’s mission. But, Nelson and Inman, who were litigators and certainly no “softies” on immigration enforcement, appreciated that for victories in Immigration Court to be meaningful and to stand up on further judicial review, the Immigration Court needed to be a level playing field that would be credible to those outside the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, the immediate improvements in due process and court management achieved by making the Immigration Courts independent from the “Legacy INS” have long since “played out.” The system within the DOJ not only reached a point of diminishing returns, but has actually been spiraling downward over the past two Administrations. Sadly, Nelson, Inman, Milhollan, and Robie have all died in the interim. But, it would be a great way to honor their memories, in the spirit of bipartisan reform and “smart government,” if an Article I Immigration Court were high on Attorney General Sessions’s agenda.

PWS

01/17/17

David Leopold Warns About Possible Five-Point Attack On Immigrants By Attorney General Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-chilling-ways-senator-jeff-sessions-could-attack-immigrants-as-attorney-general_us_5870022ce4b099cdb0fd2ef7

“As the nation’s top lawyer, head of the immigration court, and civil rights officer, Jeff Sessions would have access to multiple tools to harm immigrants and undermine due process. Given his rhetoric and record as a United States Senator, as well as his association with anti-immigrant extremists, there is every reason to believe he would use all of them.

Here are five ways Sessions could attempt to undermine immigrants and immigration policy if confirmed as Attorney General:

Impose his radical, anti-immigrant ideology on decisions by the federal immigration courts;

Expand the number of immigrants who are deported even though they qualify for a green card or asylum;

Reduce access to legal counsel and information about immigrants’ legal rights;

Criminalize immigrants by bringing trumped up charges against ordinary workers; and

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

Of course, any attempt Sessions would make to undermine civil and due process rights will be met by strong litigation from the outside. But the U.S. Senate should block his confirmation from the start, as Senator Sessions is highly unqualified for this position and has showed a profound disregard for civil and human rights.”

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

Sorry, David, but Jeff Sessions has the votes to be confirmed as the next Attorney General. Those who don’t like that can rant, but that’s not going to change the reality that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and the Republicans firmly control both Houses of Congress.

When you lose elections at the national and state levels, like the Democrats did, you end up with next to no leverage on appointments or policies unless you can reach across the aisle and strike a chord with at least some Republicans. Right now, it appears that all Republican Senators, and probably a few Democrats, ewill vote for Senator Sessions’s confirmation. Whatever his pros and cons, Senator Sessions appears to have had the wisdom to be polite and cordial to his colleagues and to occasionally reach across the aisle on issues of common interest. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to count for a lot when current or former Senators come up for confirmation to Executive Branch positions.

So barring a “bombshell” next week, and I must say his record has been “flyspecked” — regardless of what he put in the Judiciary Committee questionnaire — that’s unlikely. For better or worse, Senator Session’s views on a wide variety of subjects and his conduct as a public servant over many decades are a matter of public record. Nothing in that record seems to have given pause to any of his Republican Senate colleagues.

That being said, it woulds be nice to think that upon hearing some of the criticisms, Jeff Sessions will reflect on the huge differences between being a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and the wider responsibilities of being the chief law enforcement official, legal adviser, and litigator representing all of the People of the United States, not just the Trump Administration.

David is, of course, correct to focus on Attorney General Session’s vast authority over immigration. He will control a huge and critically important U.S. Immigration Court System currently sporting a backlog of more than one-half million cases and suffering from chronically inadequate judicial administration and lack of basic technology like e-filing. While there certainly is an interrelationship among civil rights, human rights, and due process in the Immigration Courts, there is every reason to believe that Attorney General Session’s biggest impact will be in the field of immigration.

If things go as David predicts, then the battle over fundamental fairness and due process in immigration policy and the Immigration Courts is likely to be fought out in the Article III Federal Courts, which, unlike the Immigration Courts, aren’t under Executive control. That will have some drawbacks for everyone, but particularly for the Trump Administration.

And, if Sessions is wise, he’ll look back at what happened when the Bush Administration tried to promote a “rubber stamp” approach to justice and due process in the Immigration Courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals were outraged at the patent lack of due process and fundamental fairness as “not quite ready for prime time” cases were “streamlined” and thrown into the Courts of Appeals for review with glaring factual errors and remarkable legal defects. Not totally incidentally, this also dramatically increased their workload, with judicial review of immigration matters occupying a majority of the docket in several prominent circuits.

As a result, cases were returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who then returned them to the Immigration Courts for “re-dos,” in droves. The Courts of Appeals lost faith in the Executive’s ability to run a fundamentally fair, high quality Immigration Court System, and basically placed the Immigration Courts into “judicial receivership” until things stabilized at least somewhat. The waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars caused by this “haste makes waste” approach was beyond contemplation and, for a time, threatened to paralyze the entire American justice system.

Additionally, it would be a huge mistake for the Trump Administration to view the Bush Administration’s Immigration Court debacle as the product of “bleeding heart liberal appellate judges” appointed by President Bill Clinton. The criticism from Article III Judges cut across political lines. Two of the most outspoken judicial critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the U.S. Immigration Courts were Republican appointees: then Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Second Circuit and Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Indeed, Judge Walker is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.

Obviously, those who favor greater immigration enforcement won the election and are going to have a chance to try out their policies. But, “enhanced enforcement” is likely to be effective only if we have a fair, impartial, and totally due process oriented Immigration Court System.

In other words, the Immigration Courts must be a “level playing field” with judges who, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, play the role of “impartial umpires” between those seeking to stay in our country and those seeking to remove them. Results from such a due-process oriented system would be more likely to inspire confidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, thereby increasing the stature of the Immigration Courts and their ability to achieve final resolutions at the initial, and most cost-efficient, level of our justice system. Due process and fairness in the Immigration Court System should be a nonpartisan common interest no matter where one stands on other aspects of the “immigration debate.”

We are about to find out what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in mind for the U.S. Immigration Courts and the rest of the U.S. justice system. I’m hoping for the best, but preparing to assert the essential constitutional requirement for due process in the Immigration Courts if, as David predicts, it comes under attack.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Are We On The Verge Of A “Winner Take All” Supreme Court? Will Senate Control Be Required For Future Presidents To Appoint New Justices?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-05/the-incredible-shrinking-supreme-court

Noah Feldman, columnist and Harvard Law Professor, writes in BloombergView:

“If the incredible shrinking Supreme Court sounds unimaginable, that should count as a reason to expect the Senate Republicans to break the filibuster. But an eight-justice court seemed pretty unimaginable when Justice Scalia died last February — and it’s become a reality, at least for the moment.

Even if the filibuster is overcome, there already seems to have been long-term change in the way Supreme Court seats are filled. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate today, it seems entirely possible that they would be saying they’d refuse to vote on Trump’s nominee for the next four years. Some version of winner-take-all confirmation politics may already be with us.”

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

After reading Professor Feldman’s article, seems to me that a very plausible scenario is that if the Democrats try to block a Trump nominee, the Republicans will retaliate by extending the “nuclear option ” to Supreme Court appointments, thereby allowing Trump nominees to get through the confirmation process with a “bare majority” vote of 51. The Republicans now have 52 votes in the Senate.

Thereafter, it’s hard to imagine circumstances under which a President whose party is in the Senate minority will be able to fill any Supreme Court vacancies. Additionally, the minority party (of course, Democrats at present) will lack “leverage” to force a President to appoint so-called “mainstream” candidates. As long as all, or almost all, of the Senators in the majority party are willing to support the candidate, he or she will be confirmed, no matter how “extreme ” his or her views might be considered by the minority.

This would 1) make the Supreme Court an even bigger issue in Presidential and Senatorial elections than it is now (and it’s big right now); and 2) lead to a more polarized Supreme Court, since the only limit on a President would be his or her ability to “sell” the nominee to his own party.

Finally, I don’t see any reason why this development would stop at the Supreme Court. Why wouldn’t the Senate majority party block a President from the opposing party from appointing Federal Circuit Court and even U.S. District Judges, hoping to be able to “run the table” and fill huge numbers of vacancies if they can win back the Presidency?

PWS

01/07/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: