"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.
Maria Sacchetti Immigration Reporter, Washington Post
10:09 p.m.
‘Remain in Mexico’ hearings postponed
The U.S. immigration courts are postponing all “remain in Mexico” hearings scheduled through April 22 because of the novel coronavirus outbreak in the United States, a court spokeswoman said in a statement late Monday.
Asylum-seekers with a hearing date through April 22 should appear at their assigned border checkpoint on their scheduled hearing date to receive new hearing notice, the statement said.
Trump administration officials said they are not canceling the program, known officially as the Migrant Protection Protocol, and are “deeply committed to ensuring that individuals ‘have their day in court’ while also ensuring the health and safety of aliens, our frontline officers, immigration court professionals, and our citizens.”
Immigration lawyers and labor unions representing government prosecutors and immigration judges have blasted the Justice Department for keeping the administrative immigration courts open as the novel coronavirus spreads across the United States. Court officials have now postponed all hearings except for those for detained immigrants, according to the court’s web site.
The judges, prosecutors and advocates have urged the Justice Department to shutter “all immigration courts” because of the risks of spreading the potentially deadly disease.
“Keeping the courts open is not only a health risk to everyone who comes to these courtrooms, it is creating a serious health hazard for the broader public. The Immigration Courts should be immediately closed,” Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), said in a statement Sunday.
Approximately 60,000 migrants from Central America and other regions have been turned back to Mexico after crossing the southern border to await their asylum hearings since the Trump administration launched the program last year to curb mass migration. The Justice Department has estimated that 25,000 are still in Mexico awaiting hearings. Many have returned to their native countries. Some have disappeared or been killed, advocates say.
Dahlia Lithwick Legal Reporter SlateHonorable James Dannenberg Retired State Judge Hawaii
Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:
James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.
On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.
The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.
I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.
The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
**********
So true. I’d also compare JR’s subservience to a transparently racist, White Nationalist, authoritarian agenda to White Supremacist darling Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision. Roberts is knowingly enabling the “Dred Scottifing” of Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, political opponents, the LGBTQ community, journalists, minority voters, and a host of others on the authoritarian regime’s “enemies” list.
At a time when America needs a Chief Justice with the courage and integrity to stand up for our Constitution, the rule of law, and the lives of the most vulnerable among us, we instead get Roberts.
J.R. Is quick to stand up for the rights of corporations, guns, and the Executive. But, when it comes to the rights of individuals — things like due process, human rights, and the right to be treated with human dignity, he’s nowhere to be found.
Only Justice Sotomayor had the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for the future of humanity, simple human decency, and the rule of law by voting to deny the regime’s fraudulent stay request. Typically, Roberts & Co. didn’t even have the decency and intellectual honesty to provide a rationale for their life-threatening action. A reasoned decision is one of the “minimal requirements for due process” that Roberts and the Supremes’ majority ignore on a regular basis when rolling over for Trump toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco and his transparently fabricated “emergencies.” Francisco is another one whose disingenuous role and disregard for legal ethics in carrying out Trump’s wanton cruelty and human rights abuses should never be forgotten.
The damage caused by Roberts’s failure to lead and protect humanity isn’t legalistic or academic. It’s “real harm” to “real people.”
Let’s get “up close and personal” with what happens to individuals who fled to our country seeking only due process and fair and humane treatment, just to find Roberts’s and his Supremes’ immorality and warped sense of justice.
Here’s what Roberts’s complicity looks like:
The burns from the acid attack Elizabeth endured while she was kidnapped.The acid burned all the way through to the bone in Elizabeth’s left ankle. Courtesy of Elizabeth.Courtesy of Elizabeth Elizabeth’s acid burns.
That’s right folks. Torture, proudly presented to you by Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority of the United States Supreme Court. Who would have thought it could happen here? Like Judge Dannenberg, I spent a lifetime respecting the Supreme Court and even defending their decisions, including ones with which I disagreed. That has ended with the corruption, dishonesty, and inhumanity of the Roberts Court in the Age of Trump. Unworthy of America. Unworthy by of respect.
And here’s some narrative to go with it from Adolfo Flores over at BuzzFeed News:
Elizabeth left her home in Guatemala after being brutally beaten by the father of her daughter. She went to the police who refused to help her despite filing a complaint against him. The beatings in front of her daughter continued. Fearing that one day soon he’d kill her, Elizabeth left with her daughter.
“There’s a reason why there are so many femicides,” Elizabeth said.
The pair arrived near Ciudad Juárez in late July. She got off a bus she took with her daughter that was supposed to take them to Ciudad Juárez and got into what she believed was an Uber. She asked the driver to take her to the bridge that connects the city to El Paso. But as the city lights started to fade and the streets turned to desert and cliffs, Elizabeth realized the driver was taking her away from the city.
For about 12 days she was kept inside a dirty home, occasionally fed old food, and assaulted. Different men touched her genital area and licked her breasts in front of her daughter, according to documents provided by her attorneys. She wasn’t raped, but later had brownish discharge from her vagina she believes was the result of the men hurting her with an object or fingers.
Her attorneys said they believe the men were in the cartel, but don’t know for sure. They threatened to rape her and her daughter if she didn’t provide them with a number to call family for ransom. After days of holding her for ransom that her family couldn’t pay, the men threw chemical acid on her legs that resulted in second-degree burns. Despite closing her eyes and covering her ears, her then-10-year-old daughter could hear her mother’s screams, later telling Elizabeth she would never forget the sound of them.
At one point their kidnappers went outside and her daughter realized they left the door open. Elizabeth was too weak and in too much pain from the acid burns, but her daughter persisted.
“‘I don’t want them to kill us, torture us, or do something worse,'” Elizabeth recalled her daughter saying. “‘I can’t take this anymore, I feel like I’m going to die from sadness.'”
The pair ran from the house and were eventually chased by their kidnappers, armed with large black weapons, Elizabeth said. She fainted from the pain and heat, so her daughter ran ahead and flagged down police officers who called for help. A helicopter arrived shortly after to pick up Elizabeth.
Elizabeth woke up in a hospital and was discharged after seven days despite her left ankle still bleeding and with the bone exposed. Elizabeth said the hospital was overcrowded and didn’t have enough space, but believes she was discharged quickly because she was an immigrant and not a priority for the hospital’s staff.
She was taken to a shelter that was later closed due to bad conditions. At a second shelter, the director and staff helped cure her ankle — which smelled and cause her to fear she would get gangrene — with medication and topical creams because Elizabeth was too scared to venture outside.
In November, Elizabeth had recovered enough to walk, so she went with her daughter to the Arizona border and presented herself to CBP officers to request asylum. She told them about her attack and was taken to a hospital in Tucson to be medically screened. The doctor prescribed her medication to avoid infection. Then CBP sent her back to Ciudad Juárez.
On Jan. 31, Palazzo and other attorneys walked with her to a border crossing and asked that she be allowed to fight her case in the US. She was interviewed on the phone by the asylum officer who later said she failed.
While Elizabeth was in Ciudad Juárez, the shelter operators asked her if she could watch the door while they ran an errand. A shootout occurred shortly after between criminals and police near the shelter. Men who were running from the police ran up to the shelter’s doors and told Elizabeth to let them in. She faced them and refused, but they threatened to come back for revenge before running off.
Last week, a day before Elizabeth was due at a court hearing in El Paso, she was in the streets of Ciudad Juárez when one of her kidnappers approached her and recognized her. Filled with dread, Elizabeth and her daughter quickly made their way to the shelter to hide. Her fear then was that the men would come looking for her there.
The next day, on Friday, she went to her immigration court hearing in El Paso. She joined other immigrants in MPP who present themselves at the border in the predawn hours of the day to be transported to immigration court. Her plan was to ask for another non-refoulement interview, but that same morning, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration policy.
For the entire day, attorneys, immigrants, and advocates tried to understand what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ order affirming a 2019 preliminary injunction meant for people stuck in Mexico, but also what would happen to those who had court hearings in the US that day, like Elizabeth. Sending them back would surely violate the judges’ order, some immigration attorneys said.
By Friday night, the 9th Circuit stayed its initial order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing MPP and the policy was allowed to continue. Still, Elizabeth and her daughter remained in CBP custody, and attorneys weren’t sure authorities were going to release her into the US.
She was interviewed three times about her fears of being sent back to Mexico. Her daughter told a US asylum officer about the nightmares she has, how she can’t sleep, and that she had trouble eating. Eventually, Elizabeth was told she passed her interview, was released Monday with an ankle monitor, and sent to reunite with family in Kansas.
Elizabeth was worried about the costs of continuing to receive medical care in the US for her acid burns, but she is determined to start a new chapter in her life.
“I’ve suffered a lot,” she said, “but for the first time in a long time, I feel safe.”
UPDATE
March 7, 2020, at 12:54 a.m.
This post was updated to include the more than 1,000 public reports of rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violence against immigrants sent back to Mexico.
There are lots of Elizabeths out there who have been silenced, some forever, by the likes of Roberts and other “unjust judges.” But, eventually, their stories will be told in all their grim and horrifying detail. At that point, folks like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and their enablers will attempt to “rewrite history,” to eschew moral and legal responsibility and shift the blame elsewhere with the “usual BS” like “just following the law,” “calling balls and strikes,” “just following orders.” Those are largely the same pathetic excuses offered by those who advanced the cause of human slavery, created Jim Crow, enabled genocide against Native Americans, and helped Hitler.
One of the most important tasks of the younger generation of the New Due Process Army is to bear witness and insure that J.R. & Co. don’t “get away with murder,” literally. Their job is to insure that the stories of those wronged by enablers of the Trump regime are heard loudly and clearly; to confront the complicit with the judgements of history; to insure that the descendantsof those who “stood small” and failed humanity know who their ancestors “really were” when the chips were down; and to make sure that history never again repeats itself in the form of John Roberts or anyone like him being allowed to hold positions of great trust and public responsibility in our judiciary.
Take a good like at the pictures above of Elizabeth’s legs and ankles. Those aren’t the results of somebody legitimately “just calling balls and strikes.” Roberts has “struck out.” Unfortunately, however, the rules allow him to continue to play the game to the detriment of our nation and human decency and the continued torment of those to whom he has willfully and inexcusably denied justice.
Due Process Forever; The Complicity of John Roberts, Never!
Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.
In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.
His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.
Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.
Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.
That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.
Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.
There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.
****************
The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.
Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!
With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!
Lynn S. Adelman, a U.S. district judge in Milwaukee, has riled conservatives by publishing a blistering critique of the Supreme Court’s record under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., focusing on a string of decisions that he argues have fostered “economic inequality,” “undermined democracy” and “increased the political power of corporations and wealthy individuals” at the expense of ordinary Americans.
Adelman also criticized President Trump, who he wrote ran as a populist but failed to deliver “policies beneficial to the general public. … While Trump’s temperament is that of an autocrat,” Adelman wrote, “he is disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”
The article by Adelman was all the more unusual because it went after the chief justice directly. Roberts, he said, was “misleading” in his 2005 confirmation hearing testimony when he pledged to be a passive “umpire” calling balls and strikes.
Adelman called that metaphor a “masterpiece of disingenuousness,” saying the court under Roberts “has been anything but passive” as its “hard right majority” has actively participated in “undermining American democracy.”
As president, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused federal judges of being political and beholden to the presidents who appointed them. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
The article, entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy,” is scheduled for publication in an unspecified forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, which describes itself as the official publication of the liberal American Constitution Society. It was published in full at SSRN this month.
Adelman, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997, is a former Democratic state senator in Wisconsin and Legal Aid Society trial lawyer. Perhaps his best-known decision nationally was a 2014 ruling striking down Wisconsin’s voter ID law.
His broad critique of the Roberts court, with particular reference to its decisions on voting rights and campaign finance by corporate interests, is not an uncommon one — coming, that is, from liberal scholars or political leaders, including former president Barack Obama.
But coming from a sitting federal judge in a journal article accompanied by such a blunt attack on Roberts, not to mention Trump, it has attracted uncommon attention.
. . . .
**********
Read the complete article at the link.
So I’m not the only one to note the Chiefie’s “Taneyesque” performance, particularly on issues involving the rights of migrants, refugees, Muslims, and other persons of color. He has joined the regime in “Dred Scottifying” those with brown skins who are entitled to the protection of our Constitution and our laws, which Trump has eliminated without legislation, relying largely on transparently fraudulent “national security rationales.”
But, Roberts hasn’t been much good for African Americans or other minorities either, joining his right winger activist colleagues in disingenuously dismantling key parts of civil rights and voting rights protections and turning an intentionally blind eye to partisan gerrymandering carried out by the GOP to disenfranchise minorities. Election results get skewed and folks actually die as a result of these intentional miscarriages of justice to further a toxic right wing agenda aimed at destroying America’s democratic institutions, promoting inequality, and institutionalizing privilege. As Judge Adelman said “the transformation of the Supreme Court from what he described as a defender of ordinary people and ‘subordinated groups’ to an enabler of an ‘anti-democratic’ Republican agenda.” Right on, Judge A!
I also found this comment telling:
Adelman was unapologetic. “I think it’s totally appropriate to criticize the court when there’s a basis for it,” he said. “Judges are encouraged to comment on the law because we have a particular interest, knowledge and familiarity.”
Compare that with the “muzzling” of the Immigration Judiciary by the Executive reported recently on Courtside. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/03/🤡🤡clown-court-report-as-due-process-goes-into-death-spiral-regime-muzzles-immigration-judges/
And, as I constantly point out, the Immigration Courts aren’t “courts” at all. They are blatantly unconstitutional “star chambers” run by the Executive Branch with the complicity of the Article III Judiciary who see their work daily and know full well that they are often “rubber stamping” final orders sending folks into potentially life-threatening exile with only a transparently thin veneer of “due process.” But, according to Roberts and his gang, brown-skinned refugees aren’t entitled to even access this process in a reasonable manner, let alone receive the fair hearings to which they are entitled before being “orbited” to potential death in foreign lands. What if it were his wife and kids? I’ll bet their lives would get more consideration.
I also appreciate Judge Adelman’s “spotlighting” the disingenuous testimony of Roberts and other right wingers under oath before the Senate when they “feigned impartiality” to disguise their anti-democracy agenda (without, of course, losing the support of the rightest Republicans who were “licking their chops” at finally getting their long-awaited “judicial wrecking crew” in place).
As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said recently:“In the words of Balzac, ‘to distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society.’”
Unhappily, thanks to Roberts and other complicit Article IIIs, we’re there. Which is exactly how Trump and his supporters want it!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
So much for the bogus ”passive “umpire” calling balls and strikes.”
Migrants are led back down Paso del Norte International Bridge in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, last month after the United States refused them entry. (Paul Ratje/AFP/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration may continue its “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while lower-court challenges continue, after the federal government warned that tens of thousands of immigrants amassed at the southern border could overwhelm the immigration system.
The justices reversed a decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ordered the policy be suspended Thursday on parts of the border. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only noted dissenter.
The Trump administration had warned the justices of a dire situation without their intervention.
“Substantial numbers of up to 25,000 returned aliens who are awaiting proceedings in Mexico will rush immediately to enter the United States,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a brief. “A surge of that magnitude would impose extraordinary burdens on the United States and damage our diplomatic relations with the government of Mexico.”
The experimental U.S. policy requires migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)
The program — officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP — is among the tools the Trump administration has used to curb mass migration from Central America and elsewhere across the southern U.S. border.
In the 13 months it has been in place, the government said, 60,000 migrants have been sent back into Mexico to await their U.S. asylum hearings, part of an effort to limit access to the United States and deter people from attempting the journey north.
The administration implemented the program last year, after more than 470,000 migrants — including parents and children — crossed into the United States illegally, with most quickly freed amid a massive immigration court backlog.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing immigration groups and individuals, called it an “unprecedented policy that fundamentally changed the nation’s asylum system, contrary to Congress’s design and the United States’ treaty obligations.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last month issued an injunction against the policy along the borders of California and Arizona, states within the court’s authority.
Judges William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with a lower-court judge in California that MPP probably violated federal immigration law by ousting undocumented asylum seekers who should be allowed to apply for protection in the United States.
The judges also said the program probably violated the administration’s “non-refoulement” obligations under international and domestic law, which prohibit the government from sending people to countries where they face danger. The 57-page ruling cited asylum seekers who feared kidnapping, threats and violence in Mexico.
“There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined,” Fletcher wrote in the opinion. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.”
Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the panel should have adhered to a prior appeals court decision that allowed MPP to take effect.
The Supreme Court’s action marks another case in which the Trump administration has asked the high court to immediately intervene after an adverse ruling from a regional appeals court.
The court on a 5-to-4 vote in January allowed the administration to begin implementing new “wealth test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States because they have used or might use public-assistance programs.
Maria Sacchetti contributed to this report
************************************
So much for human dignity, our Constitution, and the rule of law. How many will die because of the Supreme’s dereliction of duty before we finally get regime change? Of course, the Supremes haven’t shown much interest in voting rights and fair elections either.
The immigration policies executed by the Trump administration have been, to be succinct, f***ed up. That’s not even just me saying that. The people who have to execute his policies are saying it too.
The New York Times reports that a union of federal asylum workers has filed an amicus brief stating that a policy from the Trump Administration that diverts migrants to Guatemala is unlawful. The union, National CIS Council 119, represents 700 asylum and refugee officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The brief states that international treaty obligations are being violated as a result of having to deport migrants to a country where they will likely face prosecution. The Trump administration made a deal with Guatemala that allows the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum in the States to Guatemala. The union believes that these new rules are forcing them to violate the laws they were trained to uphold.
. . . .
********************************
Read the complete report at the link.
HEROES & ENABLERS — Judges Who Aid The Trump Regime’s Deadly Oppression Of The Most Vulnerable Among Us Will Eventually Hear The Voices Of Those They Abandoned & Dehumanized — Even From The Graves Of The Oppressed, History Will Pass Judgement On The Smugly Powerful Who Abuse The Weak!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
March 9, 2020
USCIS Asylum Officers are the “NDPA Heroes of the Week!”
So, one group of courageous civil servants is willing to put their careers on the line to defend the Constitution and the rights of the vulnerable. But, others in more protected positions, like, for example, Supreme Court Justices and some Court of Appeals Judges, are afraid to stand up to Trump and defend the rule of law and the humanity of those whose only “crime” is to trust in our legal protection system. The courage of one group contrasts with the willful ignorance and cowardly complicity of the other. What’s wrong with this picture?
At some point, there will be “regime change” in the Executive as well as the Senate. When that happens, our system needs a complete re-examination of the immigration scholarship, commitment to human rights, and the moral leadership of those we are giving lifetime appointments to the Federal Bench, particularly the Supremes.
Obviously, the system has failed when two current justices choose to use their power and privileged positions disingenuously to rail about the “bogus horrors” of nationwide injunctions, and thereby spur the regime on to even grater abuses, while papering over the real issue of the actual grotesque legal, constitutional, and human rights violations inflicted on migrants and others by a White Nationalist would-be authoritarian regime that would eventually do away with almost all of our legal rights.
In the future, perhaps we should consider elevating more Asylum Officers with law degrees and a record of fair adjudication and speaking truth to power to the Article III Judiciary, including the Supremes. There are younger members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who were forced by the regime into “early retirement” who could bring scholarship, fairness, practicality, and justice back to the Article IIIs. How about some pro bono lawyers, clinical professors, and NGO leaders who combine scholarship with real life experience and whose proven creativity and problem solving skills far exceed the pedestrian and wooden approaches we see all too often from today’s failing Article III Judiciary. Although their efforts are mocked, disrespected, and undermined by complicit Article III Judges, like the “J.R. Five,” these courageous “defenders of democracy and the rights of the weak” are the ones who are in fact keeping our legal system afloat in the face of Article III willful ignorance and complicity in tyranny.
And, we definitely need fewer corporate lawyers (except those who have extensive pro bono immigration/human rights experience), prosecutors, and right wing “think tankers” occupying the Federal bench.We have an oversupply of those folks on the bench right now, and our rights are suffering for it. It will take years, perhaps decades, to repair the damage they are causing and to bring the Federal Judicial system back into a proper balance.
These aren’t “liberal/conservative philosophical questions.” They are black and white questions of moral courage and the willingness to enforce Due Process and protect those whose lives are endangered by the Trump regime’s cruel and lawless programs and constant racially-inspired lies, naked bias, and misrepresentations. Sending folks back to dangerous countries without functioning asylum systems is wrong as a matter of law. Period. Making them “Remain in Mexico” is wrong. Period. A so-called “court system” run by a transparently biased, disingenuous, “uber enforcement” official like Billy Barr does not provide the “fair and impartial adjudications” required by Due Process. Period. Separating families and putting kids in cages and “kiddie gulags” is wrong. Period. Those initiating and carrying out those policies should be chastised and held accountable, not enabled. Period.
Actually, many courageous and scholarly U.S. District Judges have gotten these straightforward legal questions exactly right and promptly entered life-saving injunctions. A number of U.S. Immigration Judges have also courageously adhered to the rule of law in the face of excruciating and unethical pressure from DOJ politicos and their toadies to cut corners and railroad individuals out of the country without due process.
It’s the Supremes and too many Circuit Court Judges who who have “rolled over” for the regime’s cruel and inhuman nonsense. By doing so, they essentially “pull the rug” out from under those judges who have the encourage and integrity to “just say no” to the regime’s constant overreach. In doing so, the Federal Appellate Courts and the Supremes are actually engaging in undermining the system they serve and encouraging “worst practices” and even worse results. What truly reprehensible “role models” for upcoming lawyers. Fortunately, many newer lawyers are members of the New Due Process Army and are ignoring the poor and immoral examples of judicial spinelessness set by their supposed “elders.”
Life tenure protects the jobs and paychecks of Article III Judges. But, it won’t protect them from justified criticism and the ultimate judgement of history. Bashing the oppressed in behalf of those in power might seem like a good short-term strategy. After all, the deported, the abused, and the dead don’t normally get to “write history.”
But others are watching this travesty unfold and are pledged to “give a voice” to those silenced by the gross dereliction of legal duties and ignoring simple human decency and values by many with power who could have put an end to these obscene human rights abuses. Chief Justice Roger Taney might have been hailed by the White Supremacists of his age for his opinion in Dred Scott. But, he hasn’t “weathered the test of time” too well! Nor will Chief Justice Roberts and others who have been “going along to get along” with cruel and illegal abuses wantonly inflicted by the White Nationalist regime on the most needy and vulnerable among us.
Congrats and much appreciation from all of us in the New Due Process Army to USCIS Asylum Officers for your courage and integrity in the face of tyranny!
Due Process Forever; Complicity & Enabling Cruelty Never!
WITH CHARACTERISTIC bombast, the White House denounced a federal court ruling the other day that threatens the administration’s policy of shifting migrants across the border into Mexico while they await the outcome of their asylum claims. The ruling, said press secretary Stephanie Grisham, could “reignite the humanitarian and security crisis at the border.”Too late, Ms. Grisham. As a direct result of the administration’s policy, known as Remain in Mexico, a full-blown humanitarian and security crisis already has been raging at the border since last spring. But since the victims, violence and costs of that crisis happen to be just south of the border — sometimes nearly within view of it — U.S. officials have successfully averted their eyes. To the Trump administration, a crisis of its own making is out of sight and therefore must not exist.
Sadly, it does exist. Some 60,000 migrants, mainly from Central America, have been returned by U.S. officials to Mexico over the past year to await adjudication of their asylum claims. Many have given up. Those who remain, stranded in squalid shelters and tent camps along the frontier, are easy prey for Mexican crime cartels. More than 1,000 reported cases of kidnapping, rape torture and other violent crimes targeting migrants waiting in Mexico have been documented by Human Rights First, an advocacy group. Independent journalists have also confirmed such cases, often involving Mexican criminals who use the migrants as leverage for ransom demands aimed at their relatives at home or in the United States.
The mass victimization of asylum seekers runs afoul of U.S. law and this country’s treaty obligations, which prohibit subjecting asylum seekers to such risks. “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that [migrants returned to Mexico under the administration’s policy] risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum,” wrote Judge William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled against the policy but let it stand pending further appeals.
. . . .
*********************************
Read the complete editorial at the above link.
It’s great to be on the right aside of history here. But, it would be better to make history by getting essential “regime change” in November – across the board.
Brent Kendall and Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:
A federal appeals court for now agreed to narrow the effect of its recent ruling that blocked a Trump administration policy of returning immigrants at the southern U.S. border to Mexico while their requests for asylum are considered.
The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an order issued Wednesday, said it ruled correctly last week that the administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy is unlawful. But the court acknowledged the “intense and active controversy” over nationwide injunctions against administration policies and said it would limit its ruling for now to the two border states within its jurisdiction: Arizona and California.
. . .
The Ninth Circuit also said none of its ruling would go into effect until March 12, to give the Trump administration a week to ask the Supreme Court for an emergency stay to keep the policy in place every-where for the time being.
*******************
The plaintiffs have already “won” this case about the regime’s unlawful actions twice. But, they are yet to get any meaningful relief. Instead, folks continue to suffer and be irreparably harmed while the wheels of justice slowly grind.
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously Friday to suspend an order it issued earlier in the day to block a central pillar of the Trump administration’s policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts.
The three-judge panel told the government to file written arguments by the end of Monday and for the plaintiffs to respond by the end of Tuesday.
The Justice Department said at least 25,000 asylum seekers subject to the policy are currently waiting in Mexico and expressed “massive and irreparable national-security of public-safety concerns.”
Government attorneys said immigration lawyers had begun demanding that asylum seekers be allowed in the United States, with one insisting that 1,000 people be allowed to enter at one location.
“The Court’s reinstatement of the injunction causes the United States public and the government significant and irreparable harms — to border security, public safety, public health, and diplomatic relations,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
Customs and Border Protection had already begun to stop processing people under the policy.
ACLU attorney Judy Rabinovitz called the suspension of Friday’s order “a temporary step.”
“We will continue working to permanently end this unspeakably cruel policy,” she said.
. . . .
*************************
Read the full report at the link.
Remember what I said in my post yesterday: “But, hold the ‘victory dance.’” It’s not over till it’s over. And this one might not be over until the regime sends the last asylum seeker to death or into harm’s way, thereby achieving their “ultimate deterrent” at the expense of human lives and the rule of law.
Of course, the Government’s health, national security, and public safety concerns are phony as a three-dollar bill. But, that might or might not make any difference.
Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 9th Cir., 02-28-20, published
PANEL:Ferdinand F. Fernandez, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY:Judge William A. Fletcher
DISSENTING OPINION:Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
In addition to likelihood of success on the merits, a court must consider the likelihood that the requesting party will
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 49
suffer irreparable harm, the balance of the equities, and the public interest in determining whether a preliminary injunction is justified. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “When the government is a party, these last two factors merge.” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)).
There is a significant likelihood that the individual plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is not enjoined. Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.
The balance of equities favors plaintiffs. On one side is the interest of the Government in continuing to follow the directives of the MPP. However, the strength of that interest is diminished by the likelihood, established above, that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1231(b). On the other side is the interest of the plaintiffs. The individual plaintiffs risk substantial harm, even death, so long as the directives of the MPP are followed, and the organizational plaintiffs are hindered in their ability to carry out their missions.
The public interest similarly favors the plaintiffs. We agree with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant:
On the one hand, the public has a “weighty” interest “in efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982). But the public also has an interest in ensuring that “statutes enacted by [their] representatives”
50 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
are not imperiled by executive fiat. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1301 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers).
932 F.3d at 779 (alteration in original).
VII. Scope of the Injunction
The district court issued a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP—that is, enjoining the Government “from continuing to implement or expand the ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ as announced in the January 25, 2018 DHS policy memorandum and as explicated in further agency memoranda.” Innovation Law Lab, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 1130. Accepting for purposes of argument that some injunction should issue, the Government objects to its scope.
We recognize that nationwide injunctions have become increasingly controversial, but we begin by noting that it is something of a misnomer to call the district court’s order in this case a “nationwide injunction.” The MPP operates only at our southern border and directs the actions of government officials only in the four States along that border. Two of those states (California and Arizona) are in the Ninth Circuit. One of those states (New Mexico) is in the Tenth Circuit. One of those states (Texas) is in the Fifth Circuit. In practical effect, the district court’s injunction, while setting aside the MPP in its entirety, does not operate nationwide.
For two mutually reinforcing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the MPP.
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 51
First, plaintiffs have challenged the MPP under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Section 706(2)(A) of the APA provides that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in accordance with law.” We held, above, that the MPP is “not in accordance with” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Section 706(2)(A) directs that in a case where, as here, a reviewing court has found the agency action “unlawful,” the court “shall . . . set aside [the] agency action.” That is, in a case where § 706(2)(A) applies, there is a statutory directive—above and beyond the underlying statutory obligation asserted in the litigation—telling a reviewing court that its obligation is to “set aside” any unlawful agency action.
There is a presumption (often unstated) in APA cases that the offending agency action should be set aside in its entirety rather than only in limited geographical areas. “[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a court determines that an agency’s action failed to follow Congress’s clear mandate the appropriate remedy is to vacate that action.” Cal. Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1095 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 925 F.3d 1279, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The ordinary practice is to vacate unlawful agency action.”); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. United States, 817 F.2d 844, 848 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The APA requires us to vacate the agency’s decision if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .”).
52 INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF
Second, cases implicating immigration policy have a particularly strong claim for uniform relief. Federal law contemplates a “comprehensive and unified” immigration policy. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). “In immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 779. We wrote in Regents of the University of California, 908 F.3d at 511, “A final principle is also relevant: the need for uniformity in immigration policy. . . . Allowing uneven application of nationwide immigration policy flies in the face of these requirements.” We wrote to the same effect in Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 701 (9th Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018): “Because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” The Fifth Circuit, one of only two other federal circuits with states along our southern border, has held that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in immigration cases. In sustaining a nationwide injunction in an immigration case, the Fifth Circuit wrote, “[T]he Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization’; Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system.’” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). In Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017), we relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Texas to sustain the nationwide scope of a temporary restraining order in an immigration case. We wrote, “[W]e decline to limit the geographic scope of the TRO. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the
INNOVATION LAW LAB V. WOLF 53 constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform
immigration law and policy.” Id. at 1166–67. Conclusion
We conclude that the MPP is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that it is inconsistent in part with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b). Because the MPP is invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with § 1225(b), it should be enjoined in its entirety. Because plaintiffs have successfully challenged the MPP under § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and because the MPP directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border, the issuance of a temporary injunction setting aside the MPP was not an abuse of discretion.
We lift the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel, and we firm the decision of the district court.
****************************
At last, a breath of justice in halting, at least temporarily, an outrageously illegal program that is also a grotesque violation of our national values and humanity. Unfortunately, it has already resulted in thousands of injustices and damaged many lives beyond repair. That’s something that a clueless shill for authoritarianism, wanton cruelty, and abrogation of the rule of law like dissenting Judge Fernandez might want to think about.
But, hold the “victory dance.” The regime will likely seek “rehearing en banc,” appealing to other enablers of human rights atrocities like Fernandez. And, if the regime fails there, they always can “short circuit” the legal system applicable to everyone else by having Solicitor General Francisco ask his GOP buddies on the Supremes, “The JR Five,” to give the regime a free pass. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, that type of “tilt” has already become more or less “business as usual” as the regime carries out its nativist, White Nationalist immigration agenda. Indeed, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have already announced their eagerness to carry the regime’s water for them by doing away with nationwide injunctions, even though they are the sole way for doing justice in immigration cases like this.
But, at least for today, we can all celebrate a battle won by the New Due Process Army in the ongoing war to restore our Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity.
But early one morning, she kissed her sleeping son goodbye. She had spent the night watching him in his bed. It was almost his 10th birthday.
“Fue el peor momento de mi vida,” Bárbara said. It was the worst moment of my life.
It had been nearly a year since Bárbara had been left for dead outside her clothing store, a victim of the Nicaraguan government’s bloody campaign to silence pro-democracy protests that rose up in 2018.
She knew she had to flee, but she didn’t think she could protect her son on the notorious migrant trail. She wasn’t willing to risk him.
So the 29-year-old entrepreneur escaped north alone, putting herself at the mercy of the U.S. asylum system — a system meant to protect the world’s most vulnerable.
RETURNED: PART I
The first in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.
The San Diego Union-Tribune is not fully identifying Bárbara or many of the witnesses interviewed in Nicaragua because of the danger that the government might retaliate against them or their families.
Bárbara is in Tijuana, one of tens of thousands of people waiting for a chance to argue for protection in the United States, part of a changing wave of migration that the Trump administration has labeled a crisis.
She exists in a constant state of uncertainty, and she realizes now just how much she underestimated the challenges that still lie ahead.
***********************
For Kate’s full article including the “original formatting” and all of the great pictures and graphics accompanying it, click on the above link that will take you to the original article on the San Diego Union-Tribune website!
Thanks, Kate, for so beautifully capturing the “heart and soul” of the refugee experience and why the Trump regime’s intentionally cruel, illegal, immoral, and dehumanizing policies are undermining our humanity as a nation and everything we should stand for. These are human lives at stake, not “numbers,” “beds,” or “apprehensions.” Success is measured in lives saved, and fair treatment of all, not “numbers turned back” or how we can “discourage” or “deter” others from seeking refuge. Our legal system should be fair and impartial, not a “weaponized tool” for nativist immigration enforcement policies. Indeed, it supposedly is there too protect all of us against such political overreach and abuses.
Interestingly, there was a time in the past when the GOP and the Reagan Administration went out of its way to help and give refuge to those Nicaraguans fleeing the Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), one of the best, most effective, and most efficient pieces of immigration legislation ever passed, was a result of bipartisan support for providing permanent relief to Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, and Guatemalans fleeing the mess in Central American that our Government played a significant role in creating. Some off those fleeing Cuba and Eastern Europe also were covered. Now, under the influence of Trump, neo-fascist Stephen Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist gang, this GOP-led regime simply turns its back on vulnerable refugees like Barbara, the human carnage resulting from Ortega’s misrule of Nicaragua.
Perhaps in the future, Kate will put it all together in a book. Hope so!
Dead Refugee Child Washes Ashore in Turkey — Stephen Miller Hopes To Kill More Refugees in The AmericasMr. & Mrs. Stephen Miller Look Forward to Planning Together for More “Crimes Against Humanity” Targeting World’s Most Vulnerable Refugees
“KILLER ON THE ROAD” – EMBOLDENED BY THE COMPLICITY OF THE “ROBERTS’ COURT,” GOP ABDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, & BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND VALUES, REGIME APPARENTLY PLANNING EXTRALEGAL MOVE TO KILL MORE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE REFUGEES – Refugee Women, Children, LGBTQ Community, Victims Of Government-Enabled Gangs Said To Among Targets of Miller/Trump White Nationalist “American Death Squads!”
“There’s a killer on the road His brain is squirmin’ like a toad Take a long holiday Let your children play If ya give this man a ride Sweet memory will die Killer on the road, yeah”
— From “Riders on the Storm” by The Doors (1971)
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Feb. 24, 2019
I have been getting “unverified hearsay” reports from Courtside readers and others across the country that an emboldened and now totally unrestrained Trump regime actively is planning an all-out extralegal, extrajudicial onslaught against established asylum laws. It’s likely to claim the lives of many of the most vulnerable and deserving asylum seekers in the United States.
Predictably, this atrocious attack on humanity and human dignity is the “brainchild” of newly married neo-fascist White Nationalist hate monger Stephen Miller. Although unconfirmed, these reports have come from diverse enough sources and sound so consistent with the regime’s nativist, xenophobic approach to asylum that I, for one, give them credence. It’s time to start sounding the alarm for the regime’s latest vile assault on the rule of law and our common humanity!
I have gleaned that there is a 200-page anti-asylum screed floating around the bowels of the regime’s immigration bureaucracy representing more or less the nativist version of the “final solution” for asylum seekers. The gist of this monumental effort boils down along these lines:
[W]ould ban the grant of asylum claims involving PSGs defined solely by criminal activity, terrorist activity, persecutory actions, presence in country with generally high crime rates, attempted recruitment by criminal, terrorist, persecutors, perception of wealth, interpersonal disputes which government were not aware of or involved in and do not extend countrywide; private criminal acts which government was not aware of and do not extend countrywide; status as returned from U.S. and gender. Note the inclusion of “gender” at the end.
Thus, in one “foul swoop” the regime would illegally: 1) strip women and the LGBTQ community of their decades-long, hard-won rights to protection under asylum laws; 2) eliminate the current rebuttable regulatory “presumption of countrywide future persecution” for those who have suffered past persecution; 3) reverse decades of well-established U.S. and international rulings that third party actions that the government was unwilling or unable to protect against constitute persecution; and 4) encourage adjudicators to ignore the legal requirement to consider “mixed motivation” in deciding asylum cases.
There is neither legal nor moral justification for this intentional distortion and rewriting of established human rights principles. Indeed, in my experience of more than two decades as a judge at both the appellate and trial levels, a substantial number, perhaps a majority, of the successful asylum and/or withholding of removal claims in Immigration Court involved non-governmental parties and/or gender-based “particular social groups.” They were some of the clearest, most deserving, and easiest to grant asylum cases coming before the Immigration Courts.
At the “pre-Trump” Arlington Immigration Court, many of these cases were so well-documented and clearly “grantable” that they were “pre-tried” by the parties and moved up on my docket by “joint motion” for “short hearing” grants. This, in turn, encouraged and rewarded multiparty cooperation and judicial efficiency. It was “due process with efficiency, in action.”
Consequently, in addition to its inherent lawlessness, cruelty, and intentional inhumanity, the regime’s proposed actions will stymie professional cooperation between parties and inhibit judicial efficiency. This is just one of many ways in which the regime has used a combination of wanton cruelty and “malicious incompetence” to artificially “jack up” the Immigration Court backlog to over 1.3 million pending and “waiting” cases, even with the hiring of hundreds of additional Immigration Judges.
In a functioning democracy, with an independent judiciary, staffed by judges with knowledge, integrity, and courage, you might expect a timely judicial intervention to block this impending legal travesty and humanitarian disaster as soon as it becomes effective. But, as Justice Sotomayor recently pointed out in a blistering dissent, Chief Justice Roberts and his four GOP colleagues appear to have “tilted” in favor of the regime.
They can’t roll over and bend the laws fast enough to “greenlight” each new immigrant-bashing gimmick instituted by the regime. Moreover, as I’m sure is intended, once these new anti-asylum regulations are railroaded into force, the USCIS Asylum Offices will deny “credible fear” in nearly all cases, thus preventing most asylum applicants from even getting a day in court to properly challenge the regulations. All this will happen while the life-tenured Article III Courts look the other way.
For Stephen Miller, the coming Armageddon for defenseless asylum seekers must represent the ultimate triumph of fascism over democracy, hate over reason, and racism over tolerance. Miller was recently quoted in a New Yorker article about how screwing asylum applicants, and presumably knowing that they and their families would suffer and die, be tortured, or be otherwise harmed by his unlawful acts, was, in effect, his “life’s dream.” “It’s just that this is all I care about. I don’t have a family. I don’t have anything else. This is my life,” said Miller after a meeting in which he had promoted a fraudulent “Safe Third Country Agreement” with El Salvador, a country he acknowledged was without a functioning asylum system.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/stephen-miller-immigration-this-is-my-life.html.
It appears that even Miller’s forlorn “love life” has taken an upturn. Although the Trump Administration has been a “coming out party” for racists, White Nationalists, and White Supremacists of all stripes, the “hater dater circuit” has remained somewhat “restricted.” Evidently, not everyone “gets off” on the chance to get “up close and personal” with “wannabe war criminals.”
Nevertheless, in the middle of all the suffering he has caused, Miller finally found somebody who apparently hates and despises humanity just as much as he does, in Vice Presidential Press Secretary Katie Waldman. They were recently married at the Trump Hotel in D.C. with the “Hater-in-Chief” himself attending the festivities. How can America “get any greater,” particularly if you have the good fortune not to be a refugee condemned to rape, torture, abuse, family separation, beatings, disfiguration, burning, cutting, extortion or other horribles by this cruel, scofflaw, and “maliciously incompetent” regime?
TUCSON — A federal judge in Tucson ruled that the temporary U.S. Border Patrol holding facilities for migrants detained in southeastern Arizona, sometimes known as hieleras or iceboxes,”are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution.”
U.S. District Judge David Bury issued his ruling on Wednesday granting plaintiffs a permanent injunction with additional requirements for Border Patrol.
The ruling follows a seven-day trial last month detailing overcrowding, inadequate food and medical care, as well as prolonged detention for migrants arrested in the Tucson Sector, which covers Cochise, Santa Cruz and Pima counties.
“The Plaintiffs, who are civil detainees in (Customs and Border Protection) holding cells, face conditions of confinement after 12 hours which are substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison,” the judge’s ruling said.
Bury said the “undisputed” evidence showed criminal inmates in jails and even migrants in longer-term civil detention are kept in better conditions than migrants in Border Patrol custody, including “an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep,” a second layer of clothing to keep warm, and a greater variety of food beyond frozen burritos, juice and crackers.
As part of the permanent injunction, the court ordered the Border Patrol to not hold migrants who have already been processed for more than 48 hours after they were initially booked.
The only circumstances under which Border Patrol can hold migrants for an extra 24 hours is “unless and until CBP can provide conditions of confinement that meet detainees’ basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessment performed by a medical professional,” Bury said.
By law, the Border Patrol is allowed to hold migrants for up to 72 hours at its holding facilities before transferring them to another federal agency, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
During the trial, Border Patrol officials testified about the challenges they face in meeting that legal standard.
The average time in custody for migrants in 2019 was nearly 54 hours, according to the agency. But of the nearly 63,000 migrants processed in the Tucson Sector that year, more than 12,000 were held longer than the 72 hours allowed.
In 2016, Bury issued an injunction requiring Border Patrol officials in Tucson to provide clean sleeping mats and Mylar blankets to migrants held for longer than 12 hours.
The court added requirements forbidding migrants from sleeping around toilet areas of holding cells, noting that “being forced to sleep in a toilet area due to overcrowding offends the notions of common decency; it is unsanitary and degrading for all detainees who either have to sleep in the toilet area or try to use the toilet when others are sleeping there,” the ruling stated.
One of the witnesses during the trial, a 20-year-old woman from Honduras, described her experience in Border Patrol detention in April 2019. Identified as Witness B, the woman was pregnant at the time and talked about how she was nauseous and vomiting while in detention.
During the time she was in custody, she slept in a holding room so crowded that the only space to lay down was next to the toilet, she described on Wednesday during a conference call where she was joined by the attorneys who represented her in the case.
“That whole night I was vomiting, I felt really sick. I was very worried because I didn’t know how my baby was doing,” the woman said. “Then they took me to the hospital, there they treated me and they told me that my baby was doing OK.”
After she was released from the hospital, agents returned her to a holding cell, where she said she continued feeling sick. Agents didn’t give her the medication doctors had prescribed until the morning she left the Border Patrol facility, she said.
Bury’s ruling notably found no evidence that Border Patrol’s parent agency, Customs and Border Protection, had purposely created the punitive conditions. Instead, he pointed out that the agency has stretched resources to “provide the best conditions” under current circumstances.
“A presumption, however, exists that the challenged conditions of confinement are punitive because, in the context of CBP operations, there is no legitimate governmental interest for the extended detentions currently occurring at CBP facilities,” the ruling said.
The judge further defined what type of showers Border Patrol needs to allow migrants to take. “A shower is a bath in which water is showered (as in to wet with a spray, fine stream, or drops) on the body,” the ruling said. “A ‘paper-shower’ or ‘shower-wipe,’ by definition, is not a shower.”
Border Patrol officials from the Tucson Sector did not respond to a request for comment.
The legal advocacy groups and private law firms that filed the lawsuit in 2015 celebrated Bury’s decision Wednesday, pointing to potential implications beyond the Tucson Sector.
“What the Constitution requires for individuals who are held in a pre-trial capacity, that has a much broader implication,” said Caroline Walters of the American Immigration Council, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. “What the judge’s decision did today is sort of lay the groundwork for what these minimum standards should be.”
Walters said the group expects to hear more detail from Bury about implementing his permanent injunction.
“After several years we’re seeing that CBP has not changed the way that it treats people in confinement unless a court orders it,” said Alvaro Huerta, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “And so we’re ecstatic that the court has finally recognized and made CBP change the way that it’s going to do its work.”
The Honduran woman who testified in court said she felt good knowing her testimony helped convince the judge to require the U.S. government to improve conditions for migrants like her.
“A lot of people from my country are still coming here because of the situation we are going through in my country,” she said. “So I feel really happy knowing that they will have better conditions.”
Vice President Mike Pence toured a Border Patrol facility in Texas after reports that migrants detained are being held in dangerous conditions. USA TODAY
So, under Trump we treat asylum seekers worse than convicted criminals. But, don’t worry. Enabled by the Article III Courts, the regime is reducing the Gulag population and shrinking “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” by simply abrogating asylum laws and the Constitution and sending folks to Guatemala, a dangerous country with no functioning asylum system, where they won’t get a fair chance to apply for asylum and will either be forced back to the countries they fled or forced to fend for themselves in a failed state. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/remain-in-mexico-deportation-asylum-guatemala/2020/02/20/9c29f53e-4eb7-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html
Some might survive, some won’t. But, we don’t really care because it’s “out of sight, out of mind.”
I actually think that Judge Bury got part of this case wrong by incorrectly absolving the Border Patrol of intentionally abusing these individuals. Wrong! Essentially, this is the old “Good enough for Government work” cop out.
There are always alternatives to unconstitutional and punitive detention. The most obvious being releasing folks on bond if there is no constitutionally compliant alternative. Like other Government employees, Border Patrol Officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When tasked by the regime with carrying out Constitutional abuses, they actually have a duty to “just say no” even if that means resigning their jobs.
And, on a larger scale, it’s clear that the regime has chosen to waste money on unneeded and unauthorized walls, unneeded detention, frivolous legal actions, and details of Border Patrol personnel to punish cities that won’t go along with some of their unlawful behavior. That money could and should have been used to improve detention conditions to meet constitutional minimums. In simple terms, the regime made a conscious choice to violate the Constitution as part of its illegal and immoral “deterrence” program. It’s time for Article III Courts to stop enabling and papering over false, illegal “choices” by a scofflaw Administration.
The head of the Federal Judges Association is taking the extraordinary step of calling an emergency meeting to address the intervention in politically sensitive cases by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, the Philadelphia-based judge who heads the voluntary association of around 1,100 life-term federal judges, told USA Today that the issue “could not wait.” The association, founded in 1982, ordinarily concerns itself with matters of judicial compensation and legislation affecting the federal judiciary.
Republicans defend Barr as Klobuchar looks forward to testimony
Lawmakers and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway commented Feb. 16 on President Trump’s tweets and the conduct of Attorney General William P. Barr. (The Washington Post)
On Sunday, more than 1,100 former Justice Department employees released a public letter calling on Barr to resign over the Stone case.
A search of news articles since the group’s creation revealed nothing like a meeting to deal with the conduct of a president or attorney general.
Rufe, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, could not be reached for comment late Monday.
The action follows a week of turmoil that included the president tweeting his outrage over the length of sentence recommended by career federal prosecutors for his friend Roger Stone and the decision by Barr to withdraw that recommendation.
In between, Trump singled out the judge in the Stone case, Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, for personal attacks, accusing her of bias and spreading a falsehood about her record.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe said to USA Today. “We’ll talk all this through.”
Trump began disparaging federal judges who have ruled against his interests before he took office, starting with U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. After Curiel ruled against Trump in 2016 in a pair of lawsuits detailing predatory marketing practices at Trump University in San Diego, Trump described him as “a hater of Donald Trump,” adding that he believed the Indiana-born judge was “Mexican.”
Trump keeps lashing out at judges
President Trump has a history of denouncing judges over rulings that have negatively affected him personally as well as his administration’s policies. (Drea Cornejo/The Washington Post)
Faced with more than 100 adverse rulings in the federal courts, Trump has continued verbal attacks on judges.
Rufe’s comments gave no hint of what the association could or would do in response.
Some individual judges have already spoken out critically about Trump’s attacks generally, among them U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a colleague of Jackson’s in Washington, and most recently, the chief judge of the court in Washington, Beryl A. Howell.
*******************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Will Trump & Barr eventually separate Article III Judges’ families or send them to danger zones in Mexico or the Northern Triangle to “deter” rulings against the regime? Will Mark Morgan and Chad Wolf then declare “victory?” Will their families be scattered to various parts of the “New American Gulag” with no plans to reunite them? Will they be put on trial for their lives without access to lawyers? Are there costs for failing to take a “united stand” for the rule of law, Constitutional Due Process, human rights, and the human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
Why does it take the case of a lifetime sleaze-ball like Roger Stone to get the “life-tenured ones” to “wake up” to the attacks on humanity and the rule of law going on under noses for the past three years?
E.O.H.C.; M.S.H.S. v. Sec. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 3d Cir., 02-13-20, published
PANEL: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Bibas
KEY QUOTE:
This case raises the age-old question: “If not now, when?” Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 1:14. For aliens who are challenging their removal from the United States, the answer is usually “later.” But not always. And not here.
. . . .
Immigration claims ordinarily proceed from an immigra- tion judge through the Board of Immigration Appeals to the court of appeals by petition for review of a final removal order. Review by district courts is not the norm. But neither is this case. Most of the claims here cannot await a petition for re- view. By the time appellants are ordered removed to Guatemala (if ever), it will be too late to review their claims about their return to Mexico in the meantime. Only their statutory right-to-counsel claim will still be redressable. So the INA does not bar review of the remaining claims. And there is federal-question jurisdiction over the Flores claim. Because the United States is a party to the Flores Settlement Agreement, the contract claim is governed by federal common law and so arises under federal law. In short, the District Court has juris- diction over most of the claims. We will thus affirm the dis- missal of the statutory right-to-counsel claim and otherwise re- verse and remand for the District Court to address the merits.
The court actually makes one highly questionable assumption: That folks returned to Mexico will survive long enough to challenge the inevitable denial of their asylum claims in Barr’s biased “kangaroo courts.” The court fails to recognize/articulate the real driving force behind “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico:” Kill off the asylum applicants, make it impossible for them to raise their claims in the U.S. legal system by denying reasonable access, and/or demoralize individuals so that they will give up and accept their fate, even where it likely means death or torture. That’s what our “justice system” has become under the regime.
Perhaps, Article III Courts are starting to take notice of what Let ‘Em Die in Mexico is really about. The dead can’t get judicial review, at least in this world. We can only hope!
Too bad the awareness hasn’t extended to the 9th Circuit and their truly abominable, not to mention cowardly, decision in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan.
Article III Courts twiddle and fiddle, hem and haw, while real people die!
