"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
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! 🤡
“We must now decide three issues: (1) whether persons who publicly provide assistance to law enforcement against major Salvadoran gangs constitute a cognizable particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, (2) whether Guzman has established that he suffered past persecution on account of anti-gang political opinion imputed to him, and (3) whether the BIA correctly applied the framework we enunciated in Myrie v. Attorney General1 in denying Guzman relief under the CAT. For the reasons that follow, we hold that persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group, that Guzman has failed to meet his burden to show that imputed anti-gang political opinion was a central reason for the treatment he received, and that the BIA erred in its application of Myrie to Guzman’s application. Accordingly, we will vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings on Guzman’s petition for relief from removal.”
[Hats off to J. Wesley Earnhardt Troy C. Homesley, III Brian Maida (ARGUED) Cravath, Swaine & Moore!]
***************************
*** I believe that the Third Circuit uses “Attorney General” rather than the name of the particular Attorney General in their immigration citation.
Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Roth.
Distortion of evidence and law happens all the time in this dysfunctional system now operated to deny basic due process and fundamental fairness to endangered individuals. Frankly, the Judges of the Third Circuit and other Courts of Appeals should be more than just “troubled” by the BIA’s legal incompetence and anti-immigrant decision-making. This isn’t just some “academic exercise.” The lives of innocent individuals are being put at risk by the ongoing fraud at EOIR under Barr!
This one-sided politically and prosecutorially-dominated charade of a “court system” is clearly unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Not everyone has the ability to appeal to the Circuit Courts and be fortunate enough to get a panel that actually looks critically at the case, rather than just “rubber stamping” the BIA’s decisions or giving them “undue deference” like all too many Article III Judges do. Most asylum seekers aren’t represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of America’s top law firms.
Indeed, many asylum applicants are forced by the Government to proceed without any counsel and don’t have the foggiest notion of what’s happening in Immigration Court. How would an unrepresented individual or a child challenge the Immigration Judge’s or the BIA’s misapplication of the “three-part test” for “particular social group?” How would they go about raising failure to apply the applicable Circuit precedent in Myrie v. Attorney General?
Even with the best representation, as was present in this case, under pressure from political bosses like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges constantly look for “reasons to deny” relief even where the case clearly has merit, as this one does! If against these odds, the respondent “wins,” or achieves something other than an outright “loss,” Barr can merely reach in and change the result to favor DHS Enforcement.
More outrageously, he can make that improper and unethical decision a so-called “precedent” for other cases. How totally unfair can a system get? Is there any other “court system” in America where the prosecutor or the opposing party gets to select the judges, evaluate their performance under criteria that allow for no public input whatsoever, and then change results at both the trial and appellate level? How is this consistent with Due Process or basic judicial ethics, both of which require a “fair, impartial, and unbiased decision-maker.” In the “real world,” the mere “appearance” of impropriety or bias is enough to disqualify a judge from acting. Here “actual (not apparent) bias” is institutionalized and actively promoted!
The ongoing legal, ethical, and Constitutional problems at EOIR are quite obvious. For the Article III Courts to merely “tisk tisk” without requiring that immigration adjudications comply with basic Constitutional, statutory, and ethical requirements is a disservice to the public that continues to demean and undermine the role of the Article III Courts as an independent judiciary.
Due Process Forever! Captive Courts & Complicit Judges, Never!
“Hector Daniel Lopez Ordonez was conscripted into the Guatemalan military when he was 15 years old. As part of the G-2 intelligence unit, Lopez Ordonez was ordered— and repeatedly refused—to torture and kill people. After a particularly horrific incident in which Lopez Ordonez refused to murder a five-month-old baby and threatened to report the G-2’s abuses to human rights organizations, the G-2 confined him to a hole in the ground for ten months. Upon his release, he fled to the United States. Lopez Ordonez now petitions this Court to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his asylum application and ordering his removal to Guatemala. The BIA determined that Lopez Ordonez did not meet the nexus requirement to establish his eligibility for asylum—that is, he did not show past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. The record in this case, however, compels us to conclude that Lopez Ordonez has demonstrated that one central reason for his persecution by the Guatemalan military was his political opinion, a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA’s nexus determination and remand for further proceedings.”
“Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Wynn joined.”
Beneath the smokescreens of the uncontrolled backlog and gross mismanagement at EOIR lies an uglier truth. The BIA is a politically motivated tool of the Trump regime that puts reaching preconceived denials of protection ahead of Due Process and the fair application of asylum law.
This case should have been an easy grant, probably a precedent. By requiring the DHS, the Asylum Office, and Immigration Judges to follow a properly fair and generous interpretation of asylum law that would achieve its overriding purpose of protection, an intellectually honest BIA with actual legal expertise in applying asylum laws would force an end to the racially-driven intentional perversion of asylum laws and Due Process by the Trump regime.
More cases granted at a lower level would discourage the largely frivolous attempts to deny asylum engaged in by the DHS here. It would reduce the backlog by returning asylum and other protection grants to the more appropriate 60%+ levels they were at before first the Obama Administration and now the Trump regime twisted the laws and employed various coercive methods to encourage improper denials to “deter” legitimate refugees from Central America and elsewhere from seeking protection.
With fair access to legal counsel, many more asylum cases could be well-documented and granted either by the USCIS Asylum Office (without going to Immigration Court) or in “short hearings” using party stipulations. The ability to project with consistency favorable outcomes allows and encourages ICE Assistant Chief Counsel to be more selective in the cases that they choose to fully litigate. That encourages the use of stipulations, pre-trial agreements, and prosecutorial discretion that allows almost all other courts in America, save for Immigration Courts, to control dockets without stomping on individual rights.
It would also force all Administrations to establish robust, realistic refugee programs for screening individuals nearer to the Northern Triangle to obviate the need for the journey to the Southern border. Additionally, compliance with the law would pressure our Government to work with the international community to solve the issues causing the refugee flow at their roots, in the refugee-sending countries, rather than misusing the U.S. legal system and abusing civil detention as “deterrents.”
NEW YORK — Dr. P. has to be reminded to take breaks during her 12-hour emergency-room shifts — to drink water so she doesn’t get dehydrated; to go to the bathroom; even just to breathe for a few minutes alone, unencumbered by layers of sweaty, suffocating personal protective equipment.
It can be hard to remember to pause because there’s too much to do. Too many patients, everywhere, wheezing and gasping for air. Even before the ER was overwhelmed, she had been reluctant to step away. In mid-March, as patients were surging into emergency departments, she requested to cancel some scheduled time off.
“I asked to keep working, rather than just sit at home and do nothing,” she said. “It’s a helpless feeling sitting at home, knowing that things are getting worse at the hospital.”
But if the Supreme Court lets the Trump administration have its way, she might have to stop her lifesaving work, permanently.
[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]
P. is a “dreamer,” one of the 825,000unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children who have received protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (I’m using only her last initial because she fears attracting attention to her family, which is still undocumented.)
DACA, created by the Obama administration in 2012, shields these young immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. An estimated 29,000 are health-care workers like P. and on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.
After the Trump administration announced in 2017 that it planned to terminate the program, one of the more prescient outcries came from the medical community. In a Supreme Court filing, a consortium of medical colleges and aligned groups warned that the industry depends heavily on not just immigrant workers but specifically on DACA recipients, and that ending DACA would weaken the country’s ability to respond to the next pandemic.
[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]
For now, those who had DACA protections before the legal battles began are able to continue renewing them while the courts deliberate. For people such as P. — and the patients who rely on her care — this has been a godsend, if an imperfect one given her career choice.
The education and training required to become a doctor are an exceptionally long undertaking, and DACA offers only two years of protections before renewal is required (though it was never guaranteed). There was always a chance she might not be able to actually practice medicine after years of schooling and taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt.
Still, P. committed herself to finding a way to become a doctor. She applied for and received DACA status, completed college (in three years, to save money) and persuaded a highly ranked medical school to give its first-ever slot to a dreamer.
She’s in her first year of residency in emergency medicine. Each day, after she takes off her protective gear and attempts to wash off both “the virus and the fear,” she goes home and worries about whether she will be allowed to complete her residency. Losing DACA would mean losing her ability to repay her loans, treat desperate patients, even stay in the only country she has ever known. She’s been here since age 2.
She’s on edge, waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether the way the Trump administration ended DACA was lawful. Tremendous uncertainty surrounds the range of possible outcomes, from no changes at all to every DACA recipient losing protections immediately. In oral arguments last fall, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested terminating DACA would result in dreamers losing their work authorization but that deportation was not at issue; Trump administration officials have since made clear they are, in fact, reopening removal proceedings.
. . . .
**************
Read the forested of Catherine’s article at the link.
The lower Federal Courts unanimously did the right thing here by protecting the Dreamers from irrational Executive overreach based on an invidious racially-tainted White Nationalist agenda and a transparently bogus legal rationale. There was no reason for the Supremes to even take the case. Dismissing the Government’s poorly reasoned, bad faith case against the Dreamers should be a “no brainer” for the Supremes. The lower court decisions provide numerous solid reasons for doing so.
Nevertheless, to date, J.R. and his GOP colleagues have yet to find a White Nationalist immigration policy by the Trump regime that they didn’t “greenlight.” If, as expected, they do it again here, the results for both America and the Dreamers will be horrendous.
DETAINED MIGRANTS WIN IN FEDERAL COURT: JUDGE GREENLIGHTS NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
April 16, 2020
To make Press Center inquiries, email press@splcenter.org or call us at 334-956-8228.
Tens of thousands of immigrants denied medical care and disability accommodations by the federal government will have their day in court
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A federal judge ruled today that a nationwide class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can proceed, greenlighting a challenge to ICE’s system-wide failure to provide standard medical and mental health care and disability accommodations for people in its custody.
U.S. District Court Judge Jesus Bernal issued the ruling in the lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. The plaintiffs seek zero monetary damages and instead only an end to the inhumane and traumatic experience of ICE detention affecting tens of thousands across the country.
Judge Bernal denied the government’s motion to divide the nationwide lawsuit into 15 individual cases in eight district courts. He also denied ICE’s motion to strike the 200-page complaint, which was filed in the U.S District Court for the Central District of California in August 2019.
The ruling comes amid the spread of Covid-19 in detention centers, a dangerous scenario that doctors and public health experts across the country have warned will only be made worse by ICE’s lack of pre-existing medical care and substandard detention center conditions. On March 25, the groups filed an emergency preliminary injunction motion in the case requiring ICE to immediately fix numerous deficiencies in its Covid-19 response, such as inadequate staffing, resources and oversight. The motion further seeks the immediate release of medically vulnerable people if ICE cannot or will not take immediate steps to protect those who are in its custody. Judge Bernal has yet to rule on that injunction.
“Today, the court rejected ICE’s false narrative that our plaintiffs’ stories represent just a few individual problems,” said Lisa Graybill, SPLC deputy legal director. “The court saw through ICE’s deliberate mischaracterization of our case. This is the first step in holding ICE to account for its appalling treatment of the tens of thousands of immigrants needlessly incarcerated and languishing in its prisons around the country.”
According to the lawsuit, ICE has failed to provide detained migrants in over 150 facilities nationwide with safe and humane conditions, as required by agency standards, federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Numerous reports, including accounts by internal government investigators, detail the lack of sufficient medical and mental health care treatment, ultimately resulting in untreated medical needs, prolonged suffering and preventable death. ICE’s punitive use of segregation violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The agency’s failure to ensure that detained immigrants with disabilities are provided accommodations and do not face discrimination violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
“Mentally, they are killing us,” said plaintiff Ruben Mencias Soto. “What I am living and what I am seeing is not only my situation. This is unjust as a system. [The government] is falling to the lowest level with ICE.”
Mencias Soto, who has been detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center in California for over a year, has dislocated and herniated discs in his back. He has had his wheelchair and crutches taken away by detention staff, leaving him without a device to help him walk and causing immense pain.
“Across the country, ICE continually fails to provide basic medical care and necessary disability accommodations to people in immigration detention – putting thousands of people in life-threatening danger every day. From holding people with disabilities in solitary confinement solely because of their medical needs to denying patients in detention doctor-ordered emergency medical care, ICE has demonstrated incompetence and cruelty toward people with disabilities. Disability Rights Advocates is committed to fighting for the civil rights of those in custody until ICE complies with U.S. law,” said Stuart Seaborn, Managing Director of Litigation, Disability Rights Advocates.
“ICE’s failure to ensure that private prison companies like the GEO Group adequately take care of people in their custody has been an open secret for a long time,” said Timothy Fox, co-executive director of the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center. “We are pleased that the court will allow us to move forward and hopefully end the impunity with which this agency and its private operators have been acting for too long.”
Plaintiff Jose Baca Hernandez underscored that the goal of the case is to “improve health for me and the rest of the people here [in detention]. This is not only for me. It’s so everyone here can be healthy.” During his time in custody, ICE failed to provide Baca Hernandez–a blind man–with effective communication. He has been forced to rely on his cellmates, attorneys, and guards to read documents, including those related to his medical care and immigration case.
Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez Delgadillo, who has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, had reached a considerable measure of mental health stability before his detention. In detention, however, his shifting medication regime, lack of therapy and the failure of mental health staff to mitigate stressors have caused his mental health to noticeably decline.
This case is about fighting to ensure “we all can get better treatment,” Rodriguez Delgadillo said. “Some people don’t have the means or are scared to speak, so we fight for everyone else.”
The parties will work with the court to set the schedule for the litigation of the case.
See plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to sever and dismiss, transfer actions, and strike portions of the complaint here.
See the complaint here and all other filings in the case here.
***********************
What if we had a Government that “did the right thing” without being sued?
ICE Releases 8 of 14 Petitioners 24 Hours After RMIAN & Advocates File Lawsuit To Order Release of Medically-Vulnerable People in ICE Custody
In just 24 hours, ICE released 8 of the 14 petitioners in the lawsuit. All 8 are women living with HIV.
April 15, 2020
Denver — After the lawsuit filed by Arnold & Porter, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN) for the release of 14 medically-vulnerable people in civil immigration detention at the Aurora ICE Processing Center in Colorado yesterday, ICE officials released 8 of the 14 petitioners within 24 hours.
The 8 people released from immigration detention are all people living with HIV. “RMIAN is elated to see the release of these eight resilient women” says Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. “Yesterday, our clients were trapped in a cage that stripped them of any autonomy over their personal safety and wellbeing. Today, these women are finally able to protect themselves. It is astonishing the difference a day – and a federal lawsuit – makes.”
RMIAN Social Service Project, along with many community organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee, Casa de Paz, the Santa Fe Dreamers Project, and Las Americas, are receiving the women upon release and providing food, housing, and travel assistance. Jordan Garcia, Colorado Program Director of the American Friends Service Committee states, “COVID-19 unmasks how caging people threatens public health. As a society, we cannot treat anyone as expendable. Today we are relieved and heartened that these women were released into the hand of caring community, who can make sure that their needs are taken care of. We hope that more members of our community can be released in the coming days and weeks.”
“This is a great result for many of our clients, but our work is not done” said Tim Macdonald, pro bono counsel at Arnold & Porter. Co-counsel in the case will continue to fight for release of the 6 petitioners who remain detained, all of whom have medical vulnerabilities that make them especially susceptible to serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. Adrienne Boyd, also of Arnold & Porter, urged, “There is no reason for ICE to continue to detain our remaining clients. Their lives are on the line and they should be released as soon as possible.”
The lawsuit fits into a broader movement of litigation around the country asking federal judges to order release of vulnerable people detained in ICE custody in response to ICE inaction in the midst of the COVID pandemic. Sirine Shebaya, of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, explains, “We are thrilled that our 8 clients have been released after the filing of this lawsuit. But it should not have taken emergency litigation to achieve this outcome. Their quick release shows that ICE is fully capable of releasing people, and is aware of the special vulnerabilities affecting many of those it is currently detaining, but is not taking the actions it should unless compelled to do so. That is the same pattern we are seeing across the country—a refusal to acknowledge the extreme emergency and the immediate need to release persons who are detained so they can safely self-isolate during this difficult time.”
Co-counsel’s emergency filing urges the court to take up the case on an expedited basis, in light of the grave harm that could befall the people detained at any moment.
The lawsuit cites the severe risk the COVID-19 pandemic poses to the health and safety of the petitioners, who all have serious medical vulnerabilities. The ICE detention facility in Aurora, Colorado has failed to put in place CDC-recommended preventive measures, and is unable to provide adequate medical care in the event of an outbreak at the facility.
Detained people do not have personal protective equipment or cleaning supplies other than a generic bath bar and spray solution. Five staff members who work in the facility have tested positive for the virus, and several dorm units in the facility were placed under quarantine. Given the presence of the virus among the facility staff, attorneys say it is reasonable to suspect that detained individuals have already been exposed and that serious illness or death is inevitable for many immigrants and asylum seekers confined in the facility.
The clients included in this group all experience serious health issues, including respiratory illness, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart conditions, cancer, asthma, and otherwise severely compromised immune systems. One petitioner has a history of cancer, is living with only one lung, and has chronic asthma, yet she is unable to control her contact with the outside world given that she is currently detained. Attorneys say coronavirus quarantines have exacerbated the already dire conditions in the ICE facility.
Co-counsel in the case are Timothy Macdonald, Adrienne Boyd, Katie Custer, and Sarah Grey of Arnold & Porter, Sirine Shebaya, Khaled Alrabe, and Amber Qureshi of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.
——
The case is Codner v. Choate and was filed in federal district court in Denver on April 14, 2020.
Please share this important update with your social networks.
With nearly 1,000 lawyers practicing in 14 offices around the globe, Arnold & Porter serves clients across 40 distinct practice areas. The firm offers 100 years of renowned regulatory expertise, sophisticated litigation and transactional practices, and leading multidisciplinary offerings in the life sciences and financial services industries.
As the current system flounders, wastes resources, and threatens lives, let’s imagine what a better system would look like.
Article I Independent Immigration Court
Appellate Division issues nationwide precedent requiring release of most vulnerable detainees who are not dangerous and can be safely placed in communities consistent with best health guidance;
Immigration Courts use Televideo technology and e-filingto safely hold bond hearings and insure DHS compliance with criteria in individual cases on expedited basis;
Contempt authority available to insure that DHS officials and attorneys comply with legal requirements for release in good faith;
Article III review available for the limited number of individual cases that can’t be resolved by Article I Immigration Court.
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?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️
“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”
Robert Pauw Founding Partner Gibbs, Houston & Pauw Seattle, WA
********************
How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?
Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individualsand to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.
Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.
USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!
Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.
Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!
A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!
Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?
The Trump administration’s novel COVID-19 border ban invokes public health authority to erect a shadow immigration enforcement power in violation of the Refugee Act, legal safeguards for unaccompanied minors, and fundamental procedural rights. Relying on an obscure 1944 provision that provides no authority for immigration removals, the Centers for Disease Control purports to authorize summary Border Patrol expulsions of asylum seekers.
On March 20, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued a largely unnoticed but sweeping order authorizing the summary expulsion of noncitizens arriving at the border without valid documents. The Order operates wholly outside the normal immigration removal process and provides no opportunity for hearings or assertion of asylum claims. It deploys a medical quarantine authorization to override the protections of the immigration and refugee laws through the use of an unreviewable Border Patrol health “expulsion” mechanism unrelated to any finding of disease or contagion.
How the COVID-19 Expulsion Policy Works
The CDC Order is based on an emergency Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Interim Final Rule issued simultaneously with the Order under the authority of an obscure provision of the 1944 Public Health Service Act. Section 362 of that Act authorizes the Surgeon General to suspend “introduction of persons or goods” into the United States on public health grounds. Based on an unprecedented interpretation of the 1944 Act, the CDC regulation invokes the COVID-19 pandemic to redefine what constitutes “introduction of persons” and “introduction of communicable diseases” into the United States. It establishes a summary immigration expulsion process that ignores the statutory regime governing border arrivals and disregards the protections and procedures mandated by the 1980 Refugee Act and Refugee Convention as well as the special safeguards for unaccompanied minors under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”).
The CDC Order “suspending introduction of certain persons” applies to land travel from two countries, Mexico and Canada, and only to those noncitizens defined as “covered aliens.” That definition is unrelated to infection or disease. It includes only those who arrive by land without valid travel documents and immediately “suspends” their “introduction” for a renewable period of 30 days. In actuality the Order singles out those who seek asylum – and children – to order them removed to the country from which they entered or their home country “as rapidly as possible.” A recently leaked Customs and Border Protection directive makes clear that expulsion is the goal and that no process is provided.
The Order’s stated rationale is the risk alleged from “covered aliens” being crowded in “congregate settings.” The apparent justification for bypassing all legal protections and procedures is the CBP’s assertion that Border Patrol officers are “not operating pursuant to” their authority under the immigration laws.
This shadow immigration expulsion regime is not part of some coherent public health or safety plan to seal our borders or to diminish the risk of COVID-19’s introduction into the U.S. A web of other proclamations and restrictions leave open many avenues for other travelers to enter the United States. The risk of processing in congregate settings is a function of DHS’s own practices and policies; it is also not unique to landborders.
The CDC order is designed to accomplish under the guise of public health a dismantling of legal protections governing border arrivals that the Trump administration has been unable to achieve under the immigration laws. For more than a year, the administration has sought unsuccessfully to undo the asylum system at the southern border claiming that exigencies and limited government resources compel abrogating rights and protections for refugees and other noncitizens. The courts have rebuffed those attempts in critical respects. Now the administration has seized on a public health crisis to impose all it has been seeking – and more.
Unquestionably, the United States faces a pandemic of unknown scope and duration that has led to the greatest social and economic disruption and restrictions on personal movement in our lifetime. The hospital and healthcare system is under siege and threatened with collapse in some areas. Infected persons can be asymptomatic and may not be detected. The addition of contagious individuals can exacerbate spread of the virus, place additional strains on hospitals, pose dangers to healthcare workers and law enforcement officers, and increase the risk of infection for others.
But the COVID-19 ban is an act of medical gerrymandering. It is crafted to override critical legal rights and safeguards in singling out only those arriving at the border without authorization and deeming that class of people a unique and unmitigable public health threat. It tries to justify an end-run around congressionally mandated procedural rights and protections essential for refugees and unaccompanied minors and it does so to achieve an impermissible goal. What’s additionally shocking here: the statutory provision does not actually give the executive branch expulsion authority.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Lucas’s “mini treatise” at the above link.
The law is clearly against Trump here, as Lucas so eloquently and cogently sets forth. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean much in an era of a feckless GOP-stymied Congress and an authoritarian-coddling righty Supremes’ majority led by Roberts and his four sidekicks.
The Supremes have delivered a strong message to the lower Federal Courts that Trump can do just about anything he wants to migrants. He just has to invoke some transparently bogus “national security” or “emergency” rationale for ignoring the Constitution and statutes.
It’s “Dred Scottification” in full force. Largely the same way the courts buried the rights and humanity of African Americans to enable a century plus of “Jim Crow” following the end of the Civil War. The “law of the land” just became meaningless for certain people and in certain jurisdictions. “Any ol’ justification” — states’ rights, separate but equal, no jurisdiction, etc. — was more than enough to read Africans-American citizens out of their Constitutional and other legal protections.
Don’t kid yourself. That’s exactly what Trump, the GOP, and the Supremes’ majority are up to here.
And, the amazing thing, here in 21st Century America, they are getting alway with it! In plain sight!
This November, Vote Like Your Life Depends On It! Because It Does!
Andrea Castillo and Brittny Mejia report for the LA Times:
For weeks, as the coronavirus spread, Jose Hernandez Velasquez worried about the dangers of being detained inside the Adelanto ICE Processing Center 80 miles east of Los Angeles.
The 19-year-old Guatemalan immigrant listened uneasily as other men called their families, begging them to do everything possible to get them released so as to reduce their odds of contracting the deadly illness.
Ultimately, in light of the pandemic, a federal judge ordered immigration authorities to release Hernandez, an asylum seeker with hypertension who had spent nearly 21/2 years at the facility. When a guard came to tell him the news, Hernandez was speechless. Other detainees burst into applause.
“I was really worried,” he said in a phone call after his release. “It was so difficult to be inside.”
As an increasing number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees across the country test positive for COVID-19, California lawyers are working to free as many clients as they can by invoking constitutional rights and arguing on humanitarian grounds. In the last two weeks, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. ordered at least 10 people released from Adelanto, one of the country’s largest detention centers, holding nearly 2,000 people.
It’s unclear how many detainees have been released nationwide because of coronavirus concerns. In recent weeks, federal judges across the country have ordered the release of more than 40 detainees.
Like Hernandez, most have been released after lawyers petitioned federal courts on their behalf. Others have been released on bond or through humanitarian parole, which is free to people with a compelling emergency.
In response to the pandemic, ICE has instructed field offices to assess and consider for release those deemed to be at greater risk of exposure, reviewing cases of individuals age 60 and older, as well as those who are pregnant.
In court filings, ICE has argued that concern about detainees contracting COVID-19 is “based on mere speculation” and that releasing large numbers of them would set a precedent that would persist even after the virus subsides.
Until ICE agrees to release more detainees, “you’re going to keep seeing petitions like this,” said Jessica Bansal, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which got Hernandez and others released from Adelanto. “Because people need to get out.”
The ACLU has sued ICE facilities in multiple states over coronavirus concerns.
. . . .
****************************
Read the rest of the article at the above link.
Empowering a regime that functions in such a contemptuous, cruel, and incompetent manner is insane and wasteful to boot. Everyone, including the legitimate needs of DHS enforcement (not much resemblance to the current racially-driven scofflaw mess) would benefit from a professionalized, accountable, and properly focused DHS and an independent, due process with efficiency-oriented U.S. Immigration Court.
Immigration enforcement could focus on priorities that actually relate to the safety and security of our nation, the private and NGO immigration bar could expand individual case representation before the Immigration Courts thus promoting efficiency with due process, and the U.S. District Courts could return to other cases. It would be a win-win-win, notwithstanding the bogus blather of the White Nationalist restrictionists who seek to use the pandemic as a weapon to “zero out” legal immigration and force all migration into the “black market” where it can more easily be exploited and abused by them and their cronies.
Due Process Forever! Malicious Incompetence Never!
A federal judge ruled Saturday that immigration enforcement officials must allow confidential telephone calls between detainees at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and their attorneys in light of the coronavirus outbreak.
The 15-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal found that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must reverse a policy that critics said made it virtually impossible for detainees and their attorneys to confer in private at the facility, about 80 miles east of Los Angeles in San Bernardino County.
Bernal wrote that the agency must provide “free, reasonably private legal calls on unrecorded and unmonitored telephone lines, and must devise a reliable procedure for attorneys as well as detainees to schedule those calls within 24 hours of a request.”
The decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California and others sought a temporary restraining order late last month, noting the risks posed by in-person visitation amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Attorneys for the detainees, which included the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School and the law firm Sidley Austin, hailed the ruling for opening other methods for them to communicate with the outside world during the pandemic.
“This order will protect detained immigrants’ constitutional right to speak with their lawyers — enabling them to fight deportation and regain their freedom,” Eva Bitrán, staff attorney with the ACLU, said in a statement.
. . . .
*****************
“Nibbling around the edges” of the real problem we’re not addressing: far too much unnecessary, and now dangerous, so-called “civil” immigration detention.
Trump’s“New American Gulag” is a stain on our nation. Phone access is good, but doesn’t address the reality that most of the individuals in the Gulag shouldn’t be there at all.
And, one might well ask why this is an issue at all. Why are officials acting with impunity to deny basic constitutional rights? Why are lawyers required to sue for basics that should be provided in any detention system?
I actually remember a time in the past where every finding by a Federal Court that an Immigration Judge had violated an individual’s legal rights automatically generated a review by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility and sometimes disciplinary action. Why are Trump law enforcement officials immune from ethical and professional responsibilities and never held accountable (except, apparently, where they follow the law rather than Trump’s whims and desires)?
They are children who were caught crossing the southwest border without papers and sent to migrant shelters in New York when the coronavirus was silently spreading. Now the city is a pandemic epicenter in lockdown, but the Trump administration is pressing ahead with their deportation cases, forcing the children to fight in immigration court to stay.
In two courthouses in the center of the besieged city, hearings for unaccompanied children—migrants who were apprehended without a parent—are speeding forward. The U.S. Department of Justice, which controls the immigration courts, has said it has no plan to suspend them.
This week an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a teenage single mother with an infant were preparing for imminent court dates and deadlines in New York, lawyers representing them said. With children trapped indoors in shelters and foster-care homes, many young migrants who don’t have lawyers may not even be aware of ongoing court cases that could quickly end with orders for them to be deported.
Hearings for unaccompanied children are also proceeding in courts in other COVID-19 hotspots, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency in charge of the immigration courts, has rejected calls from judges, prosecutors and immigration lawyers to shut down courts nationwide. Although hearings for immigrants who are not detained have been suspended through May 1, cases of people in detention are going forward at the same accelerated pace as before the pandemic.
That includes many unaccompanied children. Since last year, Trump administration officials have instructed the courts to treat those children as detained if they are in shelters or foster care under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, a federal agency. Immigration judges are under pressure to complete detained cases within 60 days—warp speed in immigration court—with no exception for children.
Across the country, about 3,100 unaccompanied children are currently in the custody of the refugee agency. Many have run from deadly violence and abuse at home and hope to find safety with family members in the United States. The demands for them to meet fast-moving court requirements are causing alarm among lawyers, caregivers and families.
“It is inexplicable and dangerous that the Trump administration has insisted that detained unaccompanied children are still required to go to court,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, which helps provide lawyers for unaccompanied children. Unlike in criminal courts, in immigration court children have no right to a lawyer paid by the government if they cannot afford one.
On April 8, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the immigration bar, and other legal groups asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order to force the Justice Department to suspend in-person hearings of detained immigrants during the pandemic.
Justice Department officials say they are holding hearings for immigrants in detention, including for children, so they can get their cases decided and perhaps be freed quickly.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Julia’s report at the link.
The idea, as DOJ claims, that this is being done to facilitate the “freeing” of kids is preposterous on its face.
First, there is nothing stopping them from arranging placements for children without the Immigration Court hearings being completed. It used to be done all the time.
Second, the DOJ has intentionally and unethically rewritten asylum laws through “precedents” aimed primarily at making it harder to qualify for asylum. This abuse of process particularly targets those fleeing persecution resulting from various types of systematic government and societal violence in Central America. The approval rates for these types of cases have fallen to minuscule levels under Trump.
Third, no child has any chance of succeeding in Immigration Court without a lawyer. Almost all lawyers who represent children in Immigration Court serve “pro bono” — or work for NGOs who can only provide minimal salaries.
Yet, the Administration is making these lawyers risk their health and safety, while artificially accelerating the process, all of which actively and aggressively discourages representation.
Added to that is the constant “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” with Immigration Courts closing, reopening, and re-closing on a moment’s notice and dockets constantly being rearranged as judges, court support staff, interpreters, and DHS lawyers fall ill.
The Administration could work with groups like KIND and other NGOs to arrange placements, and schedule hearings in a manner that promotes health and safety for everyone while maximizing due process. But, the Administration refuses to do this.
Instead, those seeking to inject sanity, common sense, best practices, and human decency into the process are forced to sue the Administration in Federal Court. This further dissipates and diverts already scarce legal resources that could have been used to actually represent children in Immigration Court and arrange safe placements for them.
Finally, as I have noted previously, the Administration has simply suspended the operation of the Constitution and the rule of law at the borders. This means that thousands, including unaccompanied children, are “orbited into the void” without any process whatsoever or any effort to ascertain their situations or best interests.
All of this gives lie to the Administration’s bogus claim that this is about looking out for the best interests of these kids. No, it’s about maximizing cruelty, destroying lives (considered an effective and acceptable “deterrent” in nativist circles), and carrying out a noxious racist White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda.
And, to date, Congress and the Federal Courts, both of which have the power to put an end to this disgraceful, unlawful, and unconstitutional conduct have been largely “MIA.”
Nevertheless, thanks to courageous and dedicated journalists like Julia and organizations like KIND, a public record is being made. While those responsible for implementing and enabling these abuses directed at the “most vulnerable of the vulnerable” among us are likely to escape legal accountability, they will eventually be tried and found wanting in the “court of history.”
No case in the Supreme Court’s current docket has higher stakes for human life in the era of COVID-19 than its upcoming ruling on the fate of so-called Dreamers—young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and who remain shielded from deportation thanks to a program President Barack Obama instituted in 2014.
A highly unusual letter made its way to the justices late last month, after the case had already been briefed, argued, and for which a decision is already in the works. Lawyers for a group of beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known colloquially as DACA, wrote to the justices to warn about the dire consequences that a ruling in favor of Trump would have on the roughly 27,000 health care workers who happen to be DACA recipients. Among them are doctors, nurses, paramedics, and others on the front lines of combating the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the country. “Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic,” the lawyers wrote.
The letter wasn’t just an appeal to the justices’ humanity and sense of fairness—after all, like the rest of us, they themselves have had to cancel public hearings, practice social distancing, and adjust to telework. But the filing also brought to bear a legal requirement the Trump administration had to weigh, but didn’t, when the Department of Homeland Security first announced the wind-down of DACA: the multitude of “reliance interests” that the government had created when it instituted the program—not just for recipients who have built their livelihoods around it, but the scores of local governments, businesses, and institutions that rely on so-called Dreamers for their own day-to-day functioning. “The public health crisis now confronting our nation illuminates the depth of those interests as borne by employers, civil society, state, and local governments, and communities across the country, and especially by health care providers,” the lawyers wrote in their letter, which also listed examples of health care workers who would be at risk of losing it all if the Supreme Court somehow agreed with the arguments the Trump administration has made in its years-long bid to terminate DACA.
A pair of recent analyses by the Center for Migration Studies and the Center for American Progress broadened the lens and found that the number of DACA recipients who qualify as essential workers during the pandemic could reach hundreds of thousands, as many of them also work in the health industry as food preparers, custodians, or in administrative roles, or otherwise in the fields of education, manufacturing, transportation, food retail, or the hard-hit restaurant industry. Some of these health care professionals, like others in the trenches, have begun to speak up. “I am treating people suspected of having COVID-19, and all I’m asking is to stay in this country and provide that care,” Veronica Velasquez, a 27-year-old physical therapist at a Los Angeles community hospital, told USA Today. “We’re definitely helping them stay alive.” Speaking to the New York Times in the middle of his shift, Aldo Martinez, a 26-year-old paramedic in Florida who was brought to the U.S. when he was 12, seemed to make a direct appeal to the justices. “It’s imperative that the Supreme Court take account of conditions that did not exist back in November,” he said. “It seems nonsensical to invite even more chaos into an already chaotic time.”
The pandemic was unforeseen at the time the justices considered the DACA dispute in November and could well change the calculus for how the Supreme Court ultimately rules in the case. But the issue of “reliance,” which federal agencies promulgating or rolling back policy are required to consider under administrative law, is not new to the case. The words reliance or reliance interests came up dozens of times at the oral argument in November, with some justices appearing rightly concerned that the Trump administration did not engage in the due diligence federal law demands when rescinding a policy on which people’s lives, the economy, and other third parties depend. At the hearing, Justice Stephen Breyer articulated what the law expects in these circumstances. “When an agency’s prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests,” Justice Breyer said, quoting from a decade-old opinion by the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia, “it must be taken into account.” Justice Scalia added in his original 2009 opinion “that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” In other words, explain to the public why the current reality doesn’t affect your thinking for what you’re trying to do.
But when one reads the 2017 memorandum that rescinded DACA, or a later one that purported to better explain the termination, there’s no indication anywhere that the Trump administration took into account the human, economic, and social costs of leaving so many people—many of them with jobs, small businesses, American families, and ties to the community—unprotected. Later reporting by the New York Times revealed that a key actor in the deliberations to end DACA, then Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, was herself deeply conflicted with signing her name to the anti-immigrant rationales that the White House, Stephen Miller, and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions advanced for rolling back the program—none of whom, it would seem, took into consideration the myriad harms that would flow from that decision.
Courts in California, New York, and Washington, D.C., took notice of these self-inflicted flaws and allowed DACA to remain in the books. “As a practical matter,” wrote a Brooklyn federal judge in early 2018, “it is obvious that hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and those close to them planned their lives around the program.” United States District Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion leaving DACA in place that the Trump administration showed “no true cognizance of the serious reliance interests at issue here”—and worse, that “it does not even identify what those interests are.”
The Trump administration’s evident failure to own up to the human cost of its policy choices and to spell them out clearly has now given the Supreme Court an opportunity to fix the mess. But as Joe Biden suggested in a statement shortly after the DACA letter was filed, the justices cannot just close their eyes to a reality that was not before them when they first took up the case: a pandemic that has touched every single one of us—and that has fallen hardest on those providing needed medical care. “If the Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s termination of DACA in the midst of a national public health emergency, it will leave a gaping hole in our health care system that is liable to cost American lives,” Biden said.
At the very least, the justices could discard the bare-bones justifications offered by the Trump administration for doing away with DACA and make him and his administration show their work. In the letter filed with the Supreme Court at the end of March, the lawyers suggest a sort of middle ground: a new round of legal arguments in writing addressing “whether remand to the agency for reconsideration of its decision to terminate DACA is appropriate in light of the extraordinary public health emergency.” In an interview, Muneer Ahmad, a Yale law professor who is a signatory to the letter, suggested that New York, where his clients reside, is a kind of ground zero that would be instructive for the justices. “New York is both an epicenter for Dreamers and DACA recipients and an epicenter of the pandemic,” he told me.
Trump may not want to take full responsibility for the federal response to the coronavirus. But the DACA controversy, at its very core, is about political accountability—about how the law requires the president and his government to take ownership of their policy choices, even those that harm others. During the hearing to consider DACA’s fate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor alluded to the realpolitik dimensions of ending the program when she asked Noel Francisco, Trump’s chief Supreme Court lawyer, to articulate the administration’s rationale for trying to end the program. “Where is the political decision made clearly?” she asked. “That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.”
*************************
Read Cristian’s full article at the above link.
And, Cristian is by no means the only one joining me in “calling out” the J.R. Five for their betrayal of America in favor of an anti-democratic, far right political agenda, groveling before a President who has flouted his racism and open disdain for the law and courts who won’t do his bidding.
Linda Greenhouse Contributing Opinion Writer NY Times
Linda Greenhouse in The NY Times flays the “J.R. Five’s” pathetic handling of the recent Wisconsin case that highlighted the GOP’s aggressive program of voter suppression.
Here’s an excerpt from Linda’s analysis of the Supreme mockery of justice in the recent Wisconsin voter case, RNC v. DNC:
In more than four decades of studying and writing about the Supreme Court, I’ve seen a lot (and yes, I’m thinking of Bush v. Gore). But I’ve rarely seen a development as disheartening as this one: a squirrelly, intellectually dishonest lecture in the form of an unsigned majority opinion, addressed to the four dissenting justices (Need I name them? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), about how “this court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Let’s think about that. “Ordinarily not alter”?
There are quite a few things that should not ordinarily be happening these days. People shouldn’t ordinarily be afraid of catching a deadly virus when exercising their right to vote. Half the poll-worker shifts in the city of Madison are not ordinarily vacant, abandoned by a work force composed mostly of people at high risk because of their age.
Milwaukee voters are not ordinarily reduced to using only five polling places. Typically, 180 are open. (Some poll workers who did show up on Tuesday wore hazmat suits. Many voters, forced to stand in line for hours, wore masks.) And the number of requests for absentee ballots in Milwaukee doesn’t ordinarily grow by a factor of 10, leading to a huge backlog for processing and mailing.
I wonder how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh understand the word “ordinarily.” And I wonder why the opinion was issued per curiam — “by the court.” Did none of the five have the nerve to take ownership by signing his name?
**************************
Read Linda’s full article at the link.
When a case pits the Republican National Committee against the Democratic National Committee do you really have to wonder who’s going to win with the “J.R. Five” in the driver’s seat at the Supremes?
I’ve been warning for some time about the institutional failure of the Article III Courts led by the disgraceful example of Roberts who is afraid to stand up to Trump when it counts. Interesting that in this and other areas, the “professional commentators” are picking up on and reinforcing things I have been saying on Courtside for a long time. And, much of the shabby performance of America’s life tenured judiciary begins with failing to stand up to Trump’s racist assault on migrants and his unconstitutional dismantling of justice in our overtly biased Immigration Courts.
Justice Sotomayor said it very clearly at oral argument in the DACA case:“That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.” The same can be said about much of the J.R. Five’s one-sided immigration jurisprudence in the “Age of Trump.”
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.
The Hidden Impact of Removal Proceedings on Rural Communities
Although the Immigration Courts with the largest backlogs of cases are located in large cities, the latest Immigration Court records show that when adjusted for population, many rural counties have higher rates of residents in removal proceedings than urban counties. In fact, of the top 100 US counties with the highest rates of residents in removal proceedings, nearly six in ten (59%) are rural. In these communities, residents facing deportation may find themselves in rural “legal deserts[1]” where there are few qualified immigration attorneys, longer travel times to court, and high rates of poverty.
The Immigration Court data used in this report was obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Mapping Pending Immigration Court Cases
TRAC recently mapped the Immigration Court’s current active backlog—over 1.1 million cases—to show the number of residents in each county who are awaiting their day in court. In this follow-on report, TRAC used the same data set to map the proportion of residents (“rate”) with pending immigration cases as a fraction of total residents[2].
When the total number of backlog cases is mapped, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago emerge as areas with large numbers of pending cases. This makes sense, because the total number of immigration cases is driven by the geographic concentration of large numbers of people in urban areas. However, when the number of pending immigration cases is mapped relative to county population, a different picture emerges. Many large urban counties are revealed to be more average, while many rural counties are shown to have much higher concentrations of removal cases.
In these rural counties, residents may have a heightened sense that immigration enforcement is impacting their community. This, in fact, would be an entirely rational perception since the odds are indeed greater.
Figure 1 below includes a map of the proportion of residents in each county currently in the backlog (top) and the total number of cases in each county in the backlog (bottom, reprinted from our previous report). The county-level rate is represented as the number per 100,000 residents who are currently in removal proceedings.
Particularly striking is how many counties in Southern California and the New York City-Boston corridor, which are prominent in the map of the number of cases, look more typical once population is taken into account. Also striking is how counties in the Great Plains regions from Southwest Minnesota to western Oklahoma pop off the map as places where higher percentages of the community are facing deportation proceedings today.
******************
There is little doubt that DHS Enforcement and their “partners at EOIR” have made an effort to hinder individuals’ Constitutional and statutory right to representation by counsel of their choice. From “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” to locating so-called “detained courts” in obscure places, to arbitrary denial of continuances, to restricting bonds, to failures to provide notices and giving intentionally “bogus” notices, to rude and unprofessional treatment of attorneys, to trying to get rid of “know your rights” presentations, to skewing the law to change results to favor DHS.
All this leads to a largely “due process free” Deportation Railroad.
