"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to release a report by the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, finding that the group ― comprised entirely of current and former members of law enforcement ― had been “far from transparent.”
Senior U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a 45-page ruling finding that commission ― which President Donald Trump announced with fanfare at a police conference last year ― had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires that committees be “fairly balanced” in the viewpoints represented.
Attorney General William Barr said there was a need to hear from a “diversity of backgrounds and perspectives,” but the commission was full of law enforcement officials. Bates’ order requires Barr “to ensure the Commission has a fairly balanced membership.”
Last month, as HuffPost previously reported, an elected prosecutor quit one of the commission’s working groups because he worried that it was “providing cover” for a predetermined law-and-order agenda that “will only widen the divisions in our nation.”
Bates wrote that the commission’s membership “consists entirely of current and former law enforcement officials” and that no commissioner “has a criminal defense, civil rights, or community organization background.”
“Especially in 2020, when racial justice and civil rights issues involving law enforcement have erupted across the nation, one may legitimately question whether it is sound policy to have a group with little diversity of experience examine, behind closed doors, the sensitive issues facing law enforcement and the criminal justice system in America today,” he wrote.
. . . .
**************
Read the full article at the link.
YOUR tax dollars being squandered by corrupt AG on White Nationalist political propaganda. But, given that Billy the Bigot is siphoning off money from the public to fund the campaign of a racist President and his racist GOP “party,” that should be little surprise!
Billy is a one-man illegality machine. 🏴☠️ But, rarely does a Federal Judge call out his personal illegal and unethical conduct this clearly!
“POPPYCOCK!” — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Characterization Of Trump Regime’s Defense Of Asylum Seeker Abuse By DHS & Barr’s Unethical & Frivolous Arguments!
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal & Legal Clairvoyant
Due Process “Legal Eagle” Jacqueline Thompsen reports for the National Law Journal’:
. . . .
The federal immigration law requires that officers who conduct the interviews—in which migrants must show they face at least a 10% chance of persecution due to certain factors in order to be eligible for asylum—receive significant training on handling the applications
In responding to the administration’s claims that the border patrol agents received similar training as asylum officers, Leon wrote, “Poppycock! The training requirements cited in the government’s declaration do not come close to being ‘comparable’ to the training requirements of full asylum officers.”
“To make matters worse, the January MOA precludes any individual CBP agent from conducting credible fear interviews for longer than 180 days, meaning that CBP agents cannot gain the experience necessary to appropriately apply the complex asylum laws and regulations,” the judge added. “These procedures plainly violate Congress’s requirements.”
The Trump administration has administered a widespread crackdown on asylum proceedings, adopting a slew of policies that make it more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution in other countries to obtain protections in the United States.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by attorneys with Tahirih Justice Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center, on behalf of four mothers and their seven children from Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico seeking asylum in the U.S. All of the migrants failed to pass the credible fear assessment conducted by CBP agents, which were upheld by immigration judges.
Leon also found in Monday’s ruling that it “would certainly seem unlikely” that CBP agent interviews of migrants could be considered to be “nonadversarial proceedings with a neutral decision-maker,” as required under federal regulations and guidelines. He noted that border patrol agents are considered law enforcement, and said federal authorities’ statements on measures they have taken to minimize the possibility of the interviews becoming adversarial “hardly seems sufficient.”
Leon wrote the training requirements for those conducting the credible fear assessments “are essential for a functioning asylum process, which is why Congress required them,” describing the legal framework surrounding U.S. immigration, asylum, and other similar processes as “complex, to say the least.”
“After all, an asylum officer who is not adequately trained in the applicable legal requirements is less likely to ask the right questions of an asylum seeker, or for that matter, to gather the facts necessary to make an accurate determination of whether an asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution,” he continued. “Indeed, the record here contains several examples of the effects of inadequate training: one CBP agent failed to follow up with questions about an asylum-seeking plaintiff’s sexual abuse, and another failed to inquire into another asylum-seeking plaintiffs husband’s murder investigation.”
Leon also found the immigrants in the case would face irreparable harm, if he did not issue a preliminary injunction to block their removal from the U.S.
***********
Why isn’t it an ethical and professional problem for “Billy the Bigot’s” DOJ to make nonsense arguments to a Federal Judge in support of unlawful actions? Private members of the bar arguing “poppycock” in a civil case could well find themselves referred for disciplinary action. Why are Cabinet Officials and their attorneys exempt from normal professional and ethical considerations?
If only more judges at all levels could write with such clarity and in plain English!
The rejection at the “credible fear” stage of the bona fide asylum claims described by Judge Leon is beyond appalling! These are essentially totally and intentionally unqualified and biased U.S. Government employees committing “crimes against humanity” and getting away with it! These aren’t “legal errors.” It’s systemic malfeasance, otherwise known as “malicious incompetence” with a heavy dose of racism and misogyny thrown in for a good measure!
If substantiated during the immigration hearing process that should have taken place, all these applicants should have been “slam dunk” grants of asylum, withholding of removal, and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture in a properly functioning justice system. Instead, but for the efforts of pro bono counsel, they would have been illegally returned to harm, torture, and/or death with no legitimate process at all!
No wonder “Billy the Bigot’s” Immigration Courts are out of control and the borders are a deadly mess when individuals who with proper screening and access to competent counsel should have been quickly legally admitted to the U.S. under protection laws are instead being “rejected” by biased and unqualified Border Patrol Agents impersonating Asylum Officers!
Here’s my favorite quote (among many) from Judge Leon’s decision:
Of course, the Government has a strong interest in the “prompt execution of removal orders.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. However, the Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations, League of Women Voters of U.S. v. I,{ewby,838 F.3d l,12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”), especially where those statutory violations may compromise the accuracy of such removal orders. R.I.L.-R. v Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015); Grace, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 14144 Indeed, the public has an interest “in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. As such, the balance of interests here weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.
The last point, “the public has an interest ‘in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm,’” Nken,556 U.S. at 436, has basically been ignored by the Supremes’ majority recently in sending refugees to their death or into harm’s way without any semblance of due process, based on various lies, distortions, and racist schemes by the Trump regime intentionally mischaracterizing “national security” and “national emergency.” As Judge Leon would say: “Poppycock!”
Perversely, the Trump regime and the Supremes’ have made execution of illegal removal orders, resulting from racist White Nationalist schemes, a “national priority.” Truly, this is a system broken from the top down in need of immediate repair and injections of intellectually honesty, moral courage, and ethics — something that seems “out of vogue” in all three branches of our failing democracy these days
I recently had a conversation with Jacqueline in which she basically predicted this decision based on her study of the arguments and trends among U.S. District Judges, regardless of philosophy or appointing party, in DC. Nice going Jacqueline! Congrats on your clairvoyance!
Those with NLJ access (anyone can get “three free” per month by registering) can read the complete article at the link.
Judge Leon’s linear, straightforward, and “no BS” treatment of the regime’s absurdist, unethical, and scofflaw legal “defense” of essentially “crimes against humanity” contrasts sharply with the disingenuous and essentially “brain dead” treatment of similar BS by the “JR Five” on the Supremes. There, the patently unconstitutional and illegal (not to mention immoral) agenda of neo-Nazi racist Stephen Miller and the unethical maneuvers of SG Noel Francisco are often wrongfully rewarded. By contrast, the the Supremes’ majority routinely trashes the legal and constitutional rights of vulnerable people of color, particularly asylum seekers, migrants, and voters beneath an avalanche of bogus “Dred Scottification” jurisprudence.
Additionally, Judge Leon is “onto something” that has been swept under the carpet by the Supremes and the Circuit Courts when he questions “whether CBP agents could ever lawfully be given authority to conduct asylum interviews and adjudicate asylum claims, see Compl. ‘]Tfl 108-09, it would certainly seem unlikely under these circumstances. After all, law enforcement officers typically “function as adversaries” whose role is “to investigate criminal activity, to locate and arrest those who violate our laws, and to facilitate the charging and bringing of such persons to trial.” New Jersey v T.L.O.,469 U.S. 325,349 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).”
Similarly, many of us have argued that Immigration “Judges” who work for uber-enforcer and Trump shill “Billy the Bigot” and have been “repurposed” and “weaponized” into DHS enforcement support staff can not possibly be the “fair and impartial” quasi-judicial adjudicators required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment!
Better Justices and better Federal Judges for a better America, particularly for people of color and other minorities. It’s actually quite simple and straightforward. It starts with throwing Trump and the GOP out of every political office this Fall.
Then, we need some real Justices and Federal Judges who will stand against systemic racism and enforce equal justice in America!Not, rocket science! Just knowledge of the Constitution, awareness of human rights and immigrants’ rights, a focus on racial justice, courage to speak truth to power, and a demonstrated commitment to human dignity and human decency.One could easily wonder why those haven’t been the minimal requirements for Federal judicial service in the past.
Past is past, particularly for life-tenured judges. But, America can’t afford any more disastrous judicial appointments, at any level, who lack the guts and human decency to stand up to scofflaw, neo-fascist racists like Trump, Miller, and their cronies.
The top to bottom overall failure of the American judiciary to put an end to unconstitutional and unfair racism and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” in our society is aiding and abetting the dark, lawless forces aligned with the regime destabilizing our country and ripping it apart! No more!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
NDPA Superstar ⭐️ Michelle Mendez 🎖 reports for CLINIC 🏆:
New Legal Challenge: CARECEN v. Cuccinelli
Greetings,
Representing the CARECEN and seven people with Temporary Protected Status, CLINIC, Democracy Forward, Montagut & Sobral PC and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP sued the Trump administration to block a policy issued by an unauthorized federal executive, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to stop the Trump administration from denying access to lawful permanent residency to people with TPS who legally qualify for green cards thanks to their U.S. citizen spouse or child. Cuccinelli’s action, couched as a mere “update” to the agency’s policy manual, eliminates the ability for TPS beneficiaries with prior removal orders to apply to adjust status with USCIS even though they departed the United States and returned with USCIS permission. The suit challenges the policy change as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and because its author, Ken Cuccinelli, was not legally appointed to direct USCIS.
Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.
******************
Remember, folks, no human being is illegal. But, Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli is an “illegal” serving in a rogue regime!
Many thanks to all of our NDPA fighters who brought this much needed suit!
And, think of the grotesque stupidity, not to mention cruelty and illegality, behind this USCIS “policy.” Those in TPS are part of our community. Many have been here for years, even decades, working, paying taxes, and raising families (including many US citizens). Many are now fully qualified to adjust to “green card” status under existing law, thereby regularizing their status and getting out of “limbo.”
With LPR status, and eventually US citizenship, they can reach their full potential as humans and as members of our society. That’s a “win-win” that helps us move forward and prosper as a nation.
Yet, “Cooch Cooch” and the rest of the maliciously incompetent kakistocracy at DHS stay up nights thinking of ways to “stiff” our friends and neighbors in the TPS community and to keep them from regularizing their status and achieving their full human and economic potential, not to mention traumatizing US citizen family members. Talk about fraud, waste, and abuse in Government!
Incidentally, current TPS holders would all be entitled to full Immigration Court hearings if the regime attempted to expel them by force after ending TPS. Most have strong claims to relief, from cancellation of removal to asylum and other forms of protection.
Many could apply for adjustment of status in Immigration Court and individually litigate no matter what the USCIS “policy.” With a known backlog of approximately 1.5 million cases and perhaps another 500,000 to 1 million “lost in the docket dysfunction at EOIR,” their Immigration Court dates could easily be a decade, or “2.5 Administrations” from now. So, the Cuccinelli policy is basically a way of inflicting some cruelty and racist harassment on TPS’ers eligible to immigrate, without any realistic chance of “enforced removal.” Wow, talk about using a system already FUBAR’ed, to a major extent by this regime, as an illegal “weapon against humanity!”
Where, or where, have the Article IIIs been in taking a strong, unified stand against racism and stupidity (legal term “unreasonable behavior”) by the Trump immigration regime? Cooch Cooch was determined by a Federal Court to be illegally serving at USCIS! Yet, he contemptuously remains in office inflicting illegal harm and suffering on migrants, chewing up legal resources, and insultingly wasting the time of the Federal Courts.
I sort of understand the feckless performance of the Immigration Courts, wholly owned by “Billy the Bigot.” But, what’s the purpose of an independent Article III Judiciary that performs like it’s the “King’s Court” — unwilling or unable to defend our Constitution, humanity, or even their own prerogatives against the tyranny of a dangerous scofflaw moron like Trump?
What’s their excuse for drawing their salaries? The overall systemic failure of the Article III Judiciary, starting with a tone-deaf, racially insensitive, and often eagerly complicit Supreme’s majority, in the face of Trump’s White Nationalist authoritarianism, demands serious national re-examination of the role, qualities, and character we should expect from our Article III Judiciary, assuming that our nation survives the current legal and moral debacle led by Trump and enabled by judges who failed to do their duties!
“When the Trump Administration attacks families, we will hold it accountable, be it for the next few months or the next 4 years.”
That’s the key! With far too many public officials in all three branches spinelessly “tanking” on their constitutional duties to protect our rights and defend humanity from tyranny, the soldiers of the NDPA are among the courageous defenders of democracy and leaders of the long and challenging climb to equal justice and national decency. Support them by throwing the GOP — the anti-American party of bias, hate, lies, racism, institutionalized stupidity, and chaos — out at every level of government!
We’ll never get to equal justice for all with politicos, legislators, judges, and bureaucrats who don’t believe in it! Folks who quote and “honor” MLK, Jr., one day of the year and spend the rest of it trampling on his dreams and trashing his values!
Thanks to my good friend, colleague, and “NDPA General” Michelle and others for standing up to “Cooch the Illegal” and his toxic anti-American, scofflaw efforts to destroy our nation!
Lawrence S. Robbins is an appellate and trial lawyer at Robbins Russell. George T. Conway III is a lawyer and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC. The writers both submittedfriend-of-the-court briefsopposing the government’s motion in the Flynn case.
If there’s one thing you can say about President Trump and his administration, it’s that nothing is regular except the irregular, which has had myriad damaging consequences for the nation. And it’s had particularly adverse consequences for the federal government’s ability to defend itself in court.
The latest example comes in the criminal case against Trump’s first, short-tenured national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He pleaded guilty — not once but twice — to charges that he had lied to FBI agents during an interview about his conversations with senior Russian officials during the presidential transition. Despite Flynn’s admissions of guilt, Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed — and supporting Flynn’s effort to have that done without even a hearing before the district judge.
Flynn won before an appeals court panel. But when the full court of appeals heard arguments on Flynn’s petition, the judges couldn’t have seemed more bewildered at the Trump administration’s position. The government argued that the district judge couldn’t inquire into the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal even if he’d seen the prosecutor take a bribe, in open court, in exchange for dismissing the case.
The Trump administration has been saying things like that a lot lately — trying to stretch the law in ways that undermine its remaining credibility. It argued that a sitting president’s accountants and bankers can’t be subpoenaed for his personal records during his term in office by either a state grand jury or, without meeting an impossibly high burden, by Congress. It argued that the president’s close aides can’t be called to testify before a congressional committee investigating presidential misconduct. The least trustworthy administration in decades, if not ever, keeps arguing: “You’ve just got to trust us.”
Lawyers have a phrase for the government’s saying “Trust us.” It’s called the “presumption of regularity.” The presumption of regularity means that courts should presume that government officials acted through a “regular” process: that it carefully vetted its policy and scrupulously examined relevant legal precedents.
But, as its name suggests, the presumption of regularity rests on the premise that the government is functioning in a regular way. And the Trump administration is anything but regular. Following the cues of a chief executive who despises what he calls the “deep state,” administration officials have cut corners, displaced career professionals, exiled dissenters and abandoned institutional norms — in short, circumvented the very processes that justify the presumption of regularity in the first place.
The chickens have now come home to roost. Whether they say so explicitly or not, courts have been dispensing with the presumption of regularity. The best example: In the litigation over the 2020 Census, the Supreme Court held that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census form was arbitrary and capricious. The reason? “Altogether,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “the evidence does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.” That’s just a polite lawyer’s way of saying Ross lied.
Examples of the administration’s disrespect for regularity are legion, and not just confined to litigated matters. Barr has acted as a virtual one-man band of irregularity: He forced the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie K. Liu, out of her job, thereby enabling him to countermand former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. And Barr gave a transparently false account of the Mueller report in the week before it was released to the public.
. . . .
***********************************
Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that Billy the Bigot actually “runs” a so-called “court system” — the U.S. Immigration Court — that has life or death authority over some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, indeed in the world! How this stunning violation of both the Fifth Amendment and fundamental human decency (not to mention basic principles of competent management and good governance) continues to grind humanity into a grisly mess 🤮 of human misery ☠️ in plain sight every day is beyond me!
Almost everything in this “spot on” op-ed echoes “Courtside.” I have consistently criticized the irresponsibility and the gross dereliction of Constitutional duty by a Supremes majority that all too often treats Trump’s patently false, racist, xenophobic, and invidious immigration, refugee, and asylum policies as the actions of a “normal Executive” when Trump is nothing of the sort.
Nor does he even claim to be! He ran on overtly racist and hate-driven policies and has promoted racist tropes and lies about immigrants at every turn. Yet, the Supremes often pretend that there is some “legitimate basis” for clearly illegitimate policies and abrogation of important laws without the involvement of Congress and of Constitutional protections without any reasonable, fact-based justification.
If the “chickens have come home to roost” for the corrupt Trump DOJ, so will they eventually come home to roost for Supremes who have disingenuously and intentionally looked the other way and have enabled, or in some cases even encouraged, Trump’s racist and lie-driven dismantling of American democracy and “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” Life tenure protects the jobs of derelict Federal Judges. But, it won’t protect their reputations from the truth of history.
This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!
2-1 D.C. Circuit decision in Grace v. Barr, on the AG’s credible-fear rules.
Holding: We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the circularity rule and the statements regarding domestic- and gang-violence claims, vacate the injunction insofar as it pertains to those issues, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm.
—
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
***********************
Perhaps the key holdings in this 45-page majority decision are that:
The “condoned- or-completely-helpless standard” cannot replace the “unable or unwilling to control” standard in determining whether persecution by non-state-actors” (e.g., gangs) qualifies; and
The direction to apply “law of the Circuit where the credible fear interview took place” instead of “the interpretation most favorable to the applicant . . . when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard” is arbitrary and capricious.
The full decision with dissent is at the above link.
Of course, with most asylum and immigration laws for arriving individuals basically (and quite illegally) “suspended” during the COVID-19 “crisis,” and the regime’s plans (also patently illegal) to repeal asylum law by regulation in process, the practical effects of this decision remain unclear.
U.S. judge rules ICE unlawfully jails unaccompanied migrant children once they turn 18
BY SPENCER S. HSU
JULY 2 AT 5:18 PM
A federal judge ruled Thursday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unlawfully transferred thousands of unaccompanied children who turned 18 to adult detention facilities without considering alternatives, in violation of a 2013 law.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., said he will order changes “in the near future” after a bench trial in a class-action lawsuit brought in March 2018 on behalf of immigrant teenagers by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC).
Contreras found that ICE does not train field offices to search for or select less-restrictive options than contractor or ICE prisons and jails for minors aging out of refugee resettlement facilities, and in fact guides aofficers to act contrary to a law protecting trafficking victims.
As a result, the judge ruled, many officers choose not to review minors’ files, contact group homes or shelters, or respond to their attorneys suggesting alternatives. Many of ICE’s largest field offices “nearly automatically” send minors to adult jails, even when in extreme cases their parents in the United States or other sponsors would take them, the judge wrote.
“These are not the decisionmaking processes that Congress required” in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or federal rulemaking law, Contreras wrote in a 180-page opinion. “By failing to make decisions in the way Congress dictated, and based on the factors Congress identified as relevant, ICE fails to fulfill its obligations under the statute.”
The Justice Department did not have a comment, spokeswoman Alexa Vance said.
In a statement by plaintiffs, pro bono lead counsel Steve Patton of Kirkland & Ellis said: “This is a great victory for thousands of current and future unaccompanied immigrant children who turned 18 in government custody. We could not be happier with the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision.”
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Spencer’s article at the link.
While a majority of the Supremes seem committed to willfully furthering a program of racist-motivated human rights violations by the Trump kakistocracy, lower Federal Courts appear to be disassociating themselves from the Illegal activities and racist agenda of a lawless regime.
‘Failure Is Striking’: Trump-Tapped Judge Throws Out Administration’s Asylum Restriction
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly panned DOJ attorneys for leaning heavily on a single newspaper article in arguing the asylum restriction was exempt from rulemaking procedures.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., late Tuesday vacated a Trump administration rule that blocked migrants from petitioning for asylum in the U.S. if they were not first denied the protections by other countries they traveled through on their way to the southern border.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, issued the ruling nearly a year after he first rejected a temporary restraining order against the restriction. A similar challenge has played out in federal court in California, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction against the rule. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously said the administration can enforce the measure while that court fight played out.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Kelly found Trump officials violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not following the law’s “notice-and-comment” requirement before enacting the rule. He did not address other legal claims made against the policy.
Kelly rejected arguments from Trump Justice Department attorneys that officials could skip the notice-and-comment period for this rule through the APA’s “good cause” exception. Government lawyers said making the rule available for comment before it was implemented could cause a surge of asylum seekers at the border, but Kelly said there was “not sufficient evidence” to meet the exception.
Kelly slammed DOJ attorneys for leaning heavily on an October 2018 Washington Post article in making that argument, finding that the single newspaper article did not provide evidence for their record and there was little other evidence to support their claims.
“Even assuming that the rule was likely to have had a similar effect as the regulatory change described in the article, the article contains no evidence that that change caused a surge of asylum seekers at the border—let alone one on a scale and at a speed that would have jeopardized their lives or otherwise have defeated the purpose of the rule if notice-and-comment rulemaking had proceeded,” Kelly wrote. “In fact, the article lacks any data suggesting that the number of asylum seekers increased at all during this time—only that more asylum seekers brought children with them.”
The judge similarly rejected government charts showing data on border enforcement and encounters for not directly supporting DOJ’s claims.
“At bottom, as plaintiffs point out, defendants—‘despite studying migration patterns closely’—have ‘failed to document any immediate surge that has ever occurred during a temporary pause in an announced policy.’ That failure is striking,” Kelly wrote.
. . . .
*********************
Those with NLJaccess (or who haven’t exhausted their three free articles for the month) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link. The link to the full decision in CAIR Coalition v Trump is in the excerpt. I’ll have to admit that as an admirer of CAIR’s unrelenting efforts to protect our Constitution and our legal system from Trump’s racist-inspired lawlessness, the caption of this case is particularly fitting and satisfying.
Bravo for U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly for taking his job as an independent decision-maker and his oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. seriously!
This decision also casts doubt on the judicial integrity of those Supreme Court Justices who ignored the law to “greenlight” this same invalid regulation in the Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary. So far, the lower Federal Courts that have taken time to examine and reflect on the law have found Trump’s action’s unlawful. Makes one wonder why the Supremes’ majority was so overanxious to “get on with the killing” of refugees when the individual interests are life or death while the government interests are fabricated or highly exaggerated, factually inaccurate, pretexts.
When policy is made by Stephen Miller’s racist talking points rather than expert input and honest deliberation involving the common good, bad things are going to happen to those we are supposed to protect, not reject for fabricated reasons.
Still, Trump shouldn’t worry too much. He can still take his bad faith case to the D.C. Circuit where Judge Naomi “Show Me Where to Sign on My Master’s Bottom Line” Rao awaits. And, then there’s the J.R. Five who have shown the willingness and ability to accept almost any kind of unethical BS laid out by outgoing Trump SG Noel Francicso to “stick it to” vulnerable asylum seekers.
How will “The Five” function come October Term without Francisco to relay Trump’s wishes and to feed them thin cover stories that most lawyers would recognize as phony as a three-dollar bill?
WASHINGTON — The retired judge appointed to act as a friend of the court in the Michael Flynn case strongly urged the court Wednesday not to let the Justice Department abandon the prosecution.
In a scorching 83-page submission, John Gleeson said the government’s move to drop the case was “riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact,” which were contradicted by the positions it has taken in other false statement cases and by its own previous court filings about Flynn’s conduct as well as his decisions to plead guilty twice.
“Even recognizing that the Government is entitled to deference in assessing the strength of its case, these claims are not credible,” the retired judge wrote. “Indeed, they are preposterous. For starters — and most unusually — they are directly and decisively disproven by the Government’s own briefs filed just months ago in this very proceeding.”
Gleeson said judges must ordinarily defer to the wishes of the Justice Department about whether to pursue a prosecution, but not when the motives of the government are suspect. In Flynn’s case, the government’s move to dismiss the case “is based solely on the fact that Flynn is an ally of President Trump.”
Federal District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington appointed Gleeson to submit arguments about why the government should not be allowed to drop the case, so that Sullivan could consider both sides.
The appointment came after the Justice Department last month asked the judge to dismiss the case, having determined that even if Flynn lied to FBI agents in early 2017 about his phone calls with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., his lies were not “material” to any investigation and did not, therefore, violate the false statement law at the heart of his case.
Flynn told the FBI that he did talk to Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the Trump transition but denied that they talked about Russia’s response to the latest Obama sanctions or about a forthcoming UN vote. He later admitted that both those statements were untrue.
Those statements, Gleeson said, were clearly important to the FBI’s investigation into potential connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
“It is hard to conceive of a more material false statement than this one,” Gleeson said.
Gleeson said without any firm legal basis for wanting to drop the case, the only other reason must be Flynn’s relationship with Trump. Wednesday’s brief noted that the president tweeted or re-tweeted about Flynn at least 100 times since March 2017.
Clearly the president is personally invested in ensuring that Flynn’s prosecution ends, Gleeson said, adding, “Everything about this irregular.”
. . . .
**************************************
Read the rest of Pete’s article at the link.
Add this to the absolute legal, ethical, constitutional, and management disaster going in in the U.S. Immigration Courts under Barr’s “maliciously incompetent” management, and the case for removing him from office is overwhelming. Won’t happen. But, it should!
Actually, filing a “preposterous motion” backed by clearly untrue assertions is a clear violation of an attorney’s role as an “officer of the court” owing “candor to the tribunal.” If Barr were a private practitioner, it would likely earn him a referral to his state bar authorities for possible discipline or license revocation.
But, in Federal Courts these days the “undue deference” and unfairly favorable treatment of DOJ attorneys continues. It has actually been institutionalized, and even unjustly rewarded, by the Supremes. Talk about encouraging worst practices and highlighting “negative role models!”
The whole ethical debacle of the Trump Administration DOJ and the overall feckless performance of our Federal Courts, particularly the Supremes and certain Circuit Courts of Appeals, at halting clear Executive abuses and requiring honesty and professionalism (including rejecting racist or religiously bigoted agendas) from the Federal Government before tribunals cries out for a serious re-examination of: 1) who should be sitting on the Federal Bench; 2) what ethical standards they should be held to; and 3) the undue favoritism and leniency traditionally shown by Federal Courts to Government lawyers engaging in misrepresentations, sloppy work, promoting pretexts for overtly racist agendas, and constantly using dilatory litigation tactics intended to punish individual litigants for asserting their legal rights.
The last three years have shown that better Federal Judges and much more courageous, effective judicial leadership committed to guaranteeing due process and fairness for all is absolutely necessary for our nation to achieve “equal justice under law.” The current sorry state of the Article III Judiciary shows that police departments are not the only part of our broken justice system that needs reform and some “different faces” to achieve equal justice under law. As a nation, we can’t achieve social and racial justice with the gang that promoted, enabled, and in some cases even encouraged injustice in charge. And, that goes for all three failed branches of our Federal Government.
George Floyd’s death should never have happened; nor should families be separated, kids put in cages, legal asylum applicants told to rot in Mexico, and Billy Barr be allowed to operate unconstitutional “Star Chambers” masquerading as “courts” (when they are nothing of the sort). The problems in our justice system go much deeper than the Minneapolis Police Department!
Yes, they can be solved! But, not without some new faces, new approaches, and some progressive thinking and input from all of society, particularly our younger generations! You have to believe in equal justice to achieve equal justice! We can’t get there with the current gang of “non-believers” in charge and promoting their failed, and all too often overtly or covertly racially biased, agendas.
Due Process Forever!
This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
Michelle Hackman Immigration Reporter Wall Street Journal
Michelle Hackman reports for the WSJ:
WASHINGTON—The Trump administration, which has used the coronavirus health emergency to expel migrants at the border without allowing them to apply for asylum, faces its first court challenge over the practice in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 16-year-old boy.
Since President Trump declared a public-health emergency in March, immigration agents have turned back nearly all migrants, including children, at the border without providing a chance to file asylum claims. The government invoked a 1944 public-health law allowing it to expel any noncitizen who poses a threat of spreading disease during an emergency. It extended that provision indefinitely in May.
The new process overrides immigration laws that allow any foreigner on American soil with a credible fear of persecution to apply for asylum, and laws prohibiting migrant children from being deported.
The lawsuit was filed in the district court in Washington by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a 16-year-old boy from Honduras, known only by his initials J.B.B.C. He crossed the border in early June to join his father, who is living in the U.S. and awaiting his own immigration case to be heard, after fleeing what the suit described as “severe persecution” in his home country.
Under the typical process, border agents would have turned over the child to the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs a network of migrant shelters for children across the country and seeks to find them suitable guardians. Instead, border agents detained the boy in El Paso, Texas, and plan to deport him imminently, in accordance with the public-health emergency process.
Late Tuesday evening, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted J.B.B.C. a temporary restraining order, ordering the government not to deport him through at least Wednesday at midnight.
The White House and the Department of Homeland Security didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The lawsuit’s supporters acknowledge that the suit is a gamble. If a federal judge rules that immigration laws can be bypassed during an emergency—a novel application of the public-health law—the government would gain broad new authority. But not suing, they say, could allow deportations without due process to continue.
“If the courts don’t step in, the Trump administration will continue to indefinitely strip refugees of the right to seek asylum,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.
. . . .
****************************************
Read the rest of Michelle’s article at the link.
The name of the use is J.B.B.C. v. Wolf.
So far, in showing no genuine concern for human rights, the rule of law, or overt racism in major non-legislative eradications of asylum, refugee, and immigration protections by a scofflaw Administration, which has made only cosmetic efforts to disguise its racist immigration agenda, a Supremes’ majority has sent a strong chilling signal to lower Federal Judges willing to stand up for racial justice, equal justice before the law, and Executive accountability. Will the Trump regime continue to literally “get away with attempted (or actual) murder” of children and other asylum applicants? How far does the Supremes’ majority’s resolve not to give Black and Brown lives and rights their deserved legal protections, and to fold in the face of Trump’s racist bullying, extend?
Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!
This November, vote like your life depends ons it! Because it does!
Judge John “Maximum John” Sirica 1904-1992 US District Court, D.C. 1957-1992Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan US District Judge DC
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Will Judge Emmet Sullivan Become The Judge John Sirica of “Trumpgate?” — “No Nincompoops!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
May 17, 2020.Nearly five decades ago, a tough-mindedU.S. District Judge in Washington, D.C., refused to “go along to get along.” Judge “Maximum John” Sirica saw through the corrupt B.S. being put forth by defendants (“The Plumbers”) who pleaded guilty in attempting to “cover up” the badly bungled Watergate burglary of DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. So, Sirica did some digging on his own.
One of his most famous quotes — the “No Nincompoops Rule”was set forth in his New York Times obit:
None other than former Attorney General John Mitchell had been involved in orchestrating the Watergate caper, and the “cover-up” trail eventually led all the way to the Oval Office and President Nixon. Nixon eventually resigned with impeachment, conviction, and removal staring him in the face.
The scandal involved some truly bizarre moments such as the “kidnapping” of Mitchell’s eccentric, talkative, estranged wife Martha and White House Counsel John Dean being told to “deep six” potentially incriminating documents by throwing them off the 14th Street Bridge on the way home to his Alexandria townhouse. It added to our vocabulary colorful terms like “stonewalling,” “twisting slowly in the wind,” “Deep Throat,” and more, in addition, of course, to “deep six.” John “The Con” Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, perjury, and obstruction of justice (although never charged with Martha’s kidnapping) and served time in a Federal Penitentiary. Judge Sirica was named Time’s “Man of the Year.”
Watergate also resulted in changes in ethical rules and an effort to insulate the DOJ investigative and prosecution functions from political influence, particularly interference from the White House. With AG Billy Barr’s assistance, Trump has basically blown away all ethical safeguards and politicized and “weaponized” government institutions to a degree that probably exceeds Watergate.
Now, Billy Barr is trying to further Trump’s agenda by making the Flynn prosecution go away. That’s after Flynn actually pleaded guilty to the charges before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. At least initially, Judge Sullivan appears skeptical about the sudden change of course by DOJ prosecutors. It’s a move that led to the withdrawal of the career prosecutors involved in the case and a demand from a bipartisan group of more than 2,000 former DOJ officials (including me and many colleagues from the Round Table of Retired Judges) that Barr resign.
Judge Sullivan has a reputation for independence and not suffering fools lightly. He has appointed private counsel to argue against dismissal of the charges. We’ll have to see what, if anything, comes of it all.
It’s also unclear whether a lone Federal Judge of courage and integrity still can “make a difference” in today’s rapidly deteriorating legal and political environment. During Watergate, a unanimous Supremes (with Chief Justice Rehnquist recused) stood up to Nixon and rejected his bogus executive privilege claim on incriminating tapes. GOP Congressional leaders eventually joined those voices urging Nixon to resign.
So far, by contrast, the Roberts-led Supremes’ majority hasn’t shown an inclination to stand up to Trump on any major issue of Executive overreach. And, GOP legislators have shown themselves to be so scared of Trump and so far inside his pocket that they can’t see the light of day. Indeed, they appear to have lost ambition to do anything other than help Trump and cover up his corruption and “malicious incompetence.”
Even if Sullivan does uncover something shady, it’s likely that Roberts and the GOP will leap to help Trump and Barr suppress and cover up any evidence of wrongdoing by blocking or obstructing any further investigation by House Democrats. Times have changed. And, right now, that doesn’t appear to be for the better for our justice system or our nation.
Law360, Washington (April 27, 2020, 8:50 PM EDT) — A D.C. federal judge ordered the government Monday to apply certain standards laid out in a landmark consent decree that established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody to adults held in three residential detention centers in Pennsylvania and Texas amid the coronavirus outbreak. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled during a teleconference hearing that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must deliverby May 15 an account of what’s being done to expedite the release of adult detainees as well as efforts to ensure those detained at facilities with confirmed COVID-19 cases are being protected. The decision came amid allegations by immigration advocacy groups that ICE has exhibited indifference to families at high risk of contracting the disease and that no appropriate steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. The Rapid Defense Network, ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center, and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Serviceslast month sued federal immigration authorities, demanding the immediate release of dozens of migrant families at detention centers in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Dilley and Karnes City, Texas. In his ruling Monday, Judge Boasbergonce again declined to grant immediate release of the asylum-seekers. But the judge applied some conditions in the landmark 1997 federal consent decree known as the Flores settlement agreement, which established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody. The decree prohibits the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from detaining migrant children beyond the 20-day limit. Judge Boasberg expanded that holding to cover their parents, but stopped short of mandating the government to explain why an adult has been in detention for more than 20 days. The judge noted that while adults are not protected under Flores, the government has been providing some information on adults in detention to U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of California, who has been overseeing the consent decree as part of a long-running class action. “I think this is sufficient at this point to ensure the constitutional treatment of” detainees, the judge said of his order during the teleconference session. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg indicated that ICE has been making substantial efforts to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus at the facilities, pointing out that the three centers are at least 16% under capacity. So far, none of the centers have recorded cases of COVID-19, the government told the court. “Conditions are definitely improving,” the judge said. “That’s highly significant to me.” Monday’s order builds upon previous decisions by the judge, who instructed ICE to provide the court with statistics on the number of detained migrants seeking asylum; testing and treatment plans; and compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for congregate settings such as detention centers. Vanessa Molina, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing ICE, argued against applying Flores in this case. She maintained that it would be improper to demand that the agency explain why adults are in detention for more than 20 days because the consent decree was never meant to include parents or adults. Detention is a part of the removal process pending a deportation proceeding, Molina continued, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their burden of showing why they should be released. And there’s no finding in this case that ICE had been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of asylum-seekers with COVID-19 risk factors, she said. “ICE is authorized to detain the adults pending deportation proceedings,” the government attorney doubled down
Judge Boasberg responded that the government has been producing detention information on minors to the California federal judge and asked, “Why would there be any objections … [to provide similar data to the D.C. district court] for the adults?” Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Susan Baker Manning, an attorney for the migrant families, conceded to the government’s argument that detention is authorized as part of the deportation process. But the lawyer contended that her clients are being held in unsanitary conditions, that they are not subject to mandatory detention, and that they are not a danger to the community because they have no criminal histories. Manning had urged Judge Boasberg to include the 20-day condition because it “is a perfect and reasonable benchmark to understand why migrants are being held in facilities where they are at risk of contracting COVID-19.” But the judge declined to do so. The judge has set a May 20 teleconference hearing for the parties to discuss the latest developments in the litigation. The migrants are represented by Susan Baker Manning of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, ManojGovindaiah and Curtis F.J. Doebbler of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Amy Maldonado of The Law Office of Amy Maldonado, and Sarah T. Gillman and Gregory P. Copeland of Rapid Defense Network. The government is represented by Vanessa Molina of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation and Daniel Franklin Van Horn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The case is O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al., case number 1:20-cv-00786, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
**************************
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Communityfor sending this!
Sadly, the lack of leadership among all three branches of our Government means that what should be uniform policies applicable throughout the country are instead litigated piecemeal, with differing results. Not surprisingly, as the regime touts draconian immigration “bans and bars” approaches to the coronavirus crisis, it continues to fail on the everyday “Xs and Os” of competent government, requiring constant prodding from lawyers, judges, and journalists to get the basics right.
Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that he did not have the authority to order immigration courts to temporarily shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, confirmed to the federal bench last year, found he did not have jurisdiction to rule on that matter, and the immigration lawyers and detained immigrants seeking a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case.
He pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states legal challenges tied to removal proceedings conducted in immigration courts can only be brought to courts of appeals.
Nichols wrote that “the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy Article III, and also that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will increase as a result of being forced to attend in-person hearings.” But he found the detained immigrants named in the suit do not have “an imminent in-person hearing,” and therefore lack standing.
“More generally, there is no evidence in the record that any of the individual plaintiffs has been forced to appear, or will be forced to appear, at an in-person hearing over his or her request for either a continuance or some way of attending remotely, such as by VTC or teleconference. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The individual plaintiffs have thus failed to establish that they are likely to suffer an imminent injury to their health that is traceable to EOIR’s failure to take different action,” Nichols wrote.
The judge also took issue with immigration lawyer groups who alleged that detained immigrants are being deprived of counsel due to policies implemented during the pandemic.
Nichols said the lawyers “fail to explain” how the policies have caused the immigrants “to be unable to retain an attorney—especially considering that they had been unable to find counsel even before the pandemic and considering that they were able to retain counsel for this suit.”
He further said the immigration lawyers have failed to show that “immigration judges are regularly refusing to deny requests for continuances or requests for telephonic or VTC hearings.”
. . . .
********************************
Those with access to the NLJ (everyone can get 3 free “non-premium” articles per month by registering) can read Jacqueline’s full article and get Judge Nichols’s full opinion at the above link.
A slight clarification of the last sentence in Jacqueline’s full article: “Nichols, during arguments, was concerned about what options detained immigrants have if an immigration judge, which are Article I judges under the control of the Department of Justice, refused to delay an in-person hearing or hold it remotely.”
Immigration Judges are “administrative judges” who work for the Attorney General. Unfortunately, they are not “Article I Judges,” which would make them a true independent judiciary.
Immigration Judgeswould like to beArticle I Judges. Most immigration and judicial experts agree that they should be. There are a number of legislative proposals circulating to establish an independent Article Immigration Court. But, alas, notwithstanding the obvious and pressing need, Congress is nowhere close to legislating the necessary change.
So, these current blatantly unconstitutional “captive courts” operating under the DOJ will continue to stagger on, taking innocent lives and trampling due process and fundamental fairness in the process. Grimly, as I had predicted, it’s apparently going to take some actual dead bodies⚰️of migrants and perhaps their lawyers piling up on the courthouse steps to get either the Article IIIs or Congress to pay serious attention to this unfolding disaster which seems to operate just enough beneath their “radar screens” to allow them to ignore or, as in this case, paper it over.
Immigration judges and employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review said the agency’s informal policy to keep offices and courts open puts deportations over workers’ safety.
APRIL 20, 2020 05:31 PM ET
For weeks, employees at the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s immigration courts and offices have noticed a trend: whenever someone exhibits coronavirus symptoms, the agency quietly shuts the facility down for a day or two, cleans the office, and then reopens.
The frequency of these incidents, combined with the apparent refusal by management to take more proactive steps, like temporarily closing immigration courts altogether or instituting telework for EOIR support staff, have employees and judges fearing that the Trump administration is more concerned with keeping up the volume of immigration case decisions than the health of its own workforce.
Since Government Executive first reported on an instance of an employee with COVID-19 symptoms at a Falls Church, Virginia, EOIR office last week, there have been three additional incidents at that facility, including one where the person eventually tested positive for coronavirus. An office in the Dallas-Fort Worth area also was closed for two days in March after someone exhibited symptoms of the virus.
Additionally, the agency has announced on its official Twitter account more than 30 immigration court closures, most only for one or two days, across the country. Although in most instances officials do not explain the closures, National Association of Immigration Judges President Ashley Tabaddor said that if there is no reason listed, “you can be sure” it is a result of coronavirus exposure.
“Everything is reactive,” Tabbador said. “They put everyone at risk, and then when there’s an incident reported, they shut down the court for a day and then force people to come back to work. At Otay Mesa [in San Diego] there’s a huge outbreak, but they still haven’t shared that information . . . Sometimes we get the info and sometimes we don’t, so we don’t know how accurate or complete it is. There’s no faith that everyone who needs to be notified has been notified.”
Nancy Sykes, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2525, which represents staff at EOIR’s office in Falls Church said the amount of information provided to employees about coronavirus-related incidents has actually decreased in recent weeks. Although after the first incident, EOIR Director James McHenry emailed staff and provided information about when the employee was symptomatic and in the office, subsequent notifications were sent out by Acting Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Garry Malphrus and omitted key information about when symptomatic individuals were in the building.
“Employees are scared, they’re concerned,” Sykes said. “They don’t really trust what’s coming from management just because of the lack of details being shared. There’s a lag in information: by the time something is revealed, so much time has passed, so nobody’s clear how that process works and why it takes so long to get notice out to employees.”
In a statement, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said that the agency “takes the safety, health and well-being of employees very seriously,” but that the workforce is critical to ensuring the due process of detained suspected undocumented immigrants.
“Accordingly, EOIR’s current operational status is largely in line with that of most courts across the country, which have continued to receive and process filings and to hold critical hearings, while deferring others as appropriate,” Mattingly wrote. “Recognizing that cases of detained individuals may implicate unique constitutional concerns and raise particular issues of public safety, personal liberty, and due process, few courts have closed completely.”
A Series of Half Measures
Agency management has taken some steps to mitigate employees’ exposure to COVID-19. On March 30, the agency postponed all hearings related to individuals who are not being detained while they await adjudication. The agency is also encouraging the use of teleconferencing, video-teleconferencing and the filing of documents by mail or electronically, and some attorneys, paralegals and judges have been able to make use of telework to reduce the amount of time they spend in the office.
But thus far, the agency has refused to postpone hearings for detained individuals, a matter that is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by immigration advocates and attorney groups. And the agency has denied telework opportunities to support staff in EOIR offices and immigration courts across the country.
Sykes said the lack of telework is in part a capacity issue—the agency does not have the amount of laptops on hand to distribute to employees. But she suggested that local management may be prohibited from encouraging workplace flexibilities by agency or department leadership.
“We’ve asked management about doing something where you could have employees come in shifts every other day, or over a week’s time in rotation to pick up and drop off work materials, so that there’s less exposure when coming into the office,” she said. “But they said they have not been authorized to make those types of changes to our business. When my board management says they don’t have the authority, that means it’s over their heads.”
Tabaddor said she has heard similar stories that everything judges and supervisors authorize regarding coronavirus response must be “cleared” by someone up the chain of command.
“Supervisory judges, our first line of supervisory contact, they were told that they cannot put anything in writing about the pandemic or COVID,” she said. “Anything they want to do related to that has to be cleared by HQ and, essentially, the White House. So, to date, they haven’t been told what standards and protocols are to be used. The only thing they’ve been told is if there’s a report of any incident, they are to kick it up to HQ and wait for instructions.”
On Monday, McHenry sent an email to EOIR employees announcing that the agency has ordered face masks for employees to wear when they report to the office, and said they would be available “next week.”
“Once delivered, supervisors will provide their staff with information regarding distribution to employees who are not telework eligible and are working in the office,” McHenry wrote. “Even while using face coverings, however, please continue to be vigilant in maintaining social distancing measures to the maximum extent practicable and in following CDC guidance.”
Production Over People
Agency employees said what they have seen over the last month suggests that the agency is prioritizing working on its more than 1 million case backlog, and enabling the Homeland Security Department to continue to apprehend suspected undocumented immigrants, at the expense of the wellbeing of its workforce.
“Everything is designed under the rubric that the show must go on,” Tabbador said. “While we’ve been focused on public health first . . . the department says, ‘Nope, we need to make sure that the machinery continues. To the extent that we can acknowledge social distancing as long as business continues, we can do it. But between business and health considerations, business as usual supersedes health.”
Sykes said the agency’s resistance to making basic changes to protect its employees is troubling.
“To me, the only other explanation is the immense backlog that we have of immigration appellate cases building up, and the need to continue working on that backlog even in light of the current pandemic,” she said. “It’s very unnerving, because I believe this will continue, and I don’t have any other indication that we’re not going to just continue operations as is. We now finally have a confirmed case [in the building] and there’s still no change.”
In an affidavit filed in response to the lawsuit seeking to postpone immigration court hearings for detained individuals, McHenry said he has given individual immigration courts leeway to respond as needed to the COVID-19 outbreak in their communities.
“Because COVID-19 has not affected all communities nationwide in the same manner and because EOIR’s dockets vary considerably from court to court, the challenges presented by COVID-19 are not the same for every immigration court,” McHenry wrote. “In recognition of these variances and of the fact that local immigration judges and court staff are often in the best position to address challenges tailored to the specifics of their court’s practices, EOIR has not adopted a ‘one size fits all’ policy for every immigration court, though it has issued generally-applicable guidance regarding access to EOIR space, the promotion of practices that reduce the need for hearings, and the maximization of the use of telephonic and means through which to hold hearings.”
But he also suggested it could hamper the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the ability of the Border Patrol to keep arresting suspected undocumented immigrants.
“The blanket postponement of all detained cases in removal proceedings, including initial master calendar hearings for aliens recently detained by DHS, would make it extremely difficult for DHS to arrest and detain aliens prospectively, even aliens with significant criminal histories or national security concerns, because of the uncertainty of how long an alien would have to remain in custody before being able to obtain a hearing in front of an [immigration judge] that may lead to the alien’s release,” he wrote.
*******************************
Thanks, Laura, for “packaging” this so neatly for further distribution! And many thanks to Erich Wagner over at Government Executive for “keeping on” this story he originally reported and that I also posted @ Courtside. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-5mO
Nice to know that someone is looking out for the public interest here, even if EOIR isn’t.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Wow, these self-serving “GrimGrams” ☠️⚰️ from McHenry must be very comforting to the EOIR employees 😰🧫 whose health 🤮 and safety ☠️ is on the line, not to mention the possibility that they will eventually infect their own families.😰
Deportations over safety, sanity and public health at EOIR. It’s just “business as usual” in the Clown Courts! 🤡
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal
DOJ Said Judges Can’t Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a ‘Death Trap.’
Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
. . . .
*******************
Those will full access can go over to the NLJ for Jacqueline’s complete article.
With DOJ lawyers arguing that folks have to “exhaust their administrative remedies” (basically by risking death or serious illness) you get the general tenor of the argument before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in D.C.
I’d be tempted to say that during the pandemic ethical rules have been suspended for DOJ attorneys. But, in my view, that was true even before the pandemic.
And, in their defense, some of their misleading narratives and insane arguments actually WIN in Federal Court, as some Federal Judges are used to deferring to the DOJ and giving their lawyers a pass on both ethical rules and acceptable arguments that generally wouldn’t be extended to private attorneys acting in the same irresponsible manner.
What would be an acceptable response in a better functioning, ethics-biased DOJ: for the lawyers to go back to their “agency clients,” tell them that they won’t defend the indefensible, and advise them to start working immediately with the plaintiffs to develop methods for hearing only the most pressing cases under appropriate health safeguards.
Interestingly, the positions argued by DOJ lawyers are actually putting the lives of their colleagues at EOIR and their fellow Government attorneys at ICE at risk! Perhaps if they “win,” they should be given a chance to risk their lives to represent ICE in Immigration Court! Wonder how their nifty little “exhaustion arguments” would help them ward off the virus.
With 1.4 million cases already in the backlog, it’s not like any one removal more or less during the pandemic is going to make much of a difference. Unlike, perhaps, some other courts built with sufficient space and electronic support, the poorly designed “brandbox” Immigration Courts with marginal, at best, technology, are unhealthy in the best of times. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that there are very many cases other than perhaps bonds or stipulated “grant and release” cases that need to go forward right now.
How many lawyers (on both sides) and Immigration Judges are going to have to die before the Article IIIs finally take notice and put the brakes on the nonsense going on at EOIR?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️
John A. Freedman Senior Counsel Arnold & PorterHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Key Excerpt:
We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).
1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.
Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG
*********************************
Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.
