"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.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”CNN Digital Expansion 2019, Priscilla Alvarez Politics Reporter, CNN
The Justice Department’s inspector general is reviewing the Trump administration’s decision to keep the nation’s immigration courts open while the coronavirus swept through the United States.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency within the Justice Department that oversees the immigration court system, came under increased criticism from immigration judges, attorneys, and prosecutors for proceeding with immigration hearings despite social distancing guidelines and shelter in place orders.
Eventually, the agency postponed hearings scheduled for immigrants who are not in detention, providing some reprieve and resulting in less traffic at the court, but hearings for immigrants in detention, including children, continue to proceed.
It made incremental changes to court operations in the first weeks of the outbreak, often late at night and through Twitter, frustrating immigration judges and lawyers who repeatedly urged the agency to close courts altogether.
According to the inspector general’s website, the office will “assess EOIR’s communication to staff, parties to proceedings, and the public about immigration court operations; its use of personal protective equipment; its use of worksite flexibilities; and its ability to mitigate health risks while maintaining operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
************************
Read the rest of Priscilla’s article at the link.
Communication with the field and the public hasn’t been a strong point for EOIR in this regime. Nor has getting employee or public input before taking drastic actions been a concern. The disrespect for its own judges is graphically illustrated by EOIR’s frivolous attempt to “decertify” the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) when it should be getting input from them (and the public) and working cooperatively to implement “best practices.”
Past IG investigations haven’t turned out particularly well for EOIR. But, the regime has shown a spectacular capacity for “blowing off” the results of independent investigations into its conduct and following up by “punishing” the investigators without consequences for the wrongdoers.
Ironically, then, if the investigation is critical of EOIR, it could be more “career threatening” for the investigators than for the delinquent EOIR management officials carrying out the “party line.”
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–67. Argued February 25, 2020—Decided May 7, 2020
Respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. She assisted clients working without au- thorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certifi- cation program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith knew that her clients could not meet the long-passed statutory application-filing deadline, but she nonetheless charged each client over $6,000, netting more than $3.3 million.
Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law,” §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” §1324(a)(1)(B)(i). In the District Court, she urged that the pro- visions did not cover her conduct, and if they did, they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied. The District Court rejected her arguments and she was convicted, as relevant here, on two counts under §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i).
Sineneng-Smith essentially repeated the same arguments on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Again she asserted a right under the First Amendment to file administrative applications on her clients’ behalf, and she argued that the statute could not constitutionally be applied to her conduct. Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the par- ties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the
2 UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH Syllabus
First Amendment. In accord with the amici’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Held: The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion.
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243.
That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case. No extraordinary circumstances justified the panel’s takeover of the appeal. Sineneng-Smith, represented by competent counsel, had raised a vagueness argument and First Amendment arguments homing in on her own conduct, not that of others. Electing not to address the party-presented controversy, the panel projected that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) might cover a wide swath of protected speech, including abstract advocacy and legal advice. It did so even though Sineneng-Smith’s counsel had presented a contrary theory of the case in her briefs and before the District Court. A court is not hidebound by counsel’s precise arguments, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical trans- formation of this case goes well beyond the pale. On remand, the case is to be reconsidered shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties. Pp. 3–9.
910 F. 3d 461, vacated and remanded.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.
************************************
👎Justice Thomas used his concurring opinion as an opportunity to attack the “overbreadth doctrine,” and to solicit future challenges to it, presumably from right-wing advocates and activist conservative judges who agree with him.
It’s interesting how moderate and liberal judges who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, and standing up for individual rights in the face of government overreach are often forced to deny that they are “activists.” By contrast, right wing judges often make little or no attempt to disguise their activist, often anti-human-rights, “turn back the clock to the bad old days,” agenda and to use their opinions as a forum to critique and solicit challenges to rules of law they don’t like. Often such rules under attack from the judicial right tend to vindicate the rights and humanity of individuals, particularly minorities and other vulnerable individuals, over corporate, government, financial, and other elitist interests.
Additionally, as with Thomas, the the right-wing judicial activists customarily harken back wistfully to a past “golden” age of American Jurisprudence when the exclusively white, male, nearly 100% Christian Supremes were perfectly happy to look the other way and bend the rules to favor ruling elites over African Americans, women, children, the poor, non-Christians, and others who weren’t part of the “ruling elites.” Thomas laments the abandonment of the views and methods of the “18th & 19 century” American judiciary. Most ironically, under those rules and the “world outlook and values” they often embodied, it’s highly unlikely that Thomas himself would have been able to attend Yale, become a Justice, or otherwise be allowed and encouraged to reach his full potential.
Quite contrary to Thomas’s argument, we can’t and shouldn’t take “value judgement” out of judging. Indeed, Thomas’s plea to let the Legislature and the Executive run roughshod over constitutional rights if they choose to do so is, in and of itself, a clear “value judgment” as to what best serves society. Making “value judgments” is at the heart of all judging. That isn’t the problem. No, the real problem is the lack of consistent human (and humane) values, practical experience, and human empathy in too many of today’s Federal Judges, particularly those appointed by Trump and Moscow Mitch.
At least we clearly know what’s coming in the future from the “Trump Judiciary” and their cheerleaders like Thomas. Consequently, it’s critically important that “Democrats and liberals” act accordingly the next time they get control over Federal Judicial appointments.
A 57-year-old detainee at ICE’s Otay Mesa facility, which is run by private contractor CoreCivic, died early Wednesday of complications of the coronavirus disease after being hospitalized since late April, according to San Diego County officials. This is the first reported COVID-19 death of an immigrant in ICE custody.
Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia was from El Salvador, according to a government report obtained by BuzzFeed News. He’d been held by ICE since January and was hospitalized April 24 after exhibiting coronavirus symptoms. He had hypertension and self-reported diabetes but was denied release from custody in mid-April by an immigration judge.
ICE and CoreCivic did not immediately respond to a request for further details.
(CoreCivic in mid-April said it had given masks to detainees at Otay Mesa and was quarantining positive cases in “housing pods” and separating those at high medical risk.)
Of nearly 30,000 immigrants in ICE detention centers nationwide, the agency has so far tested only 1,460 for COVID-19, and more than 705 immigrants have tested positive.
Activists have been calling for the release of all people from immigration detention, warning that there is no realistic way to keep immigrants safe during a pandemic in such facilities, which have long been reported to have substandard health care and sanitation.
“This is a terrible tragedy, and it was entirely predictable and preventable,” Andrea Flores, deputy director of immigration policy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement Wednesday.
“For months, public health experts and corrections officials have warned that detention centers would be Petri dishes for the spread of COVID-19 — and a death trap for thousands of people in civil detention,” she added. “Unless ICE acts quickly to release far more people from detention, they will keep getting sick and many more will die.”
That means that responsibility for meaningful custody review passes to the U.S. District Courts.
Why have an Immigration Court at all if it’s going to function as a mindless “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement driven by White Nationalist extremist politicos like Miller? If the Immigration Courts are no longer willing or able to guarantee fair and impartial adjudications, which unfortunately appears to be the case under Billy Barr, maybe all removal proceedings and bond hearings should just be held before U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. District Judges until Congress establishes an independent Article I Immigration Court!
Due Process 🧑🏽⚖️🧑🏽⚖️ Forever! More Deaths ⚰️ in the New American Gulag, ☠️ Never!
Whatever happened to the “promise of Kasinga? How have Sessions & Barr attacked the international refugee definition? Does international law have any meaning for the U.S. today? All this and more in 15 minutes!
********************
See the “premier offering” from the “Courtside Video” broadcasting from our redesigned studio!
Thanks so much, Jason, for inviting me to do this! I hope your students find it useful! And, remember, I’m always available to answer questions at “Courtside.”
The Los Angeles Times has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for art critic Christopher Knight’s watchdog coverage of plans for the new Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and reporter Molly O’Toole’s audio story about U.S. asylum officers’ discontent with President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.
The prizes were awarded Monday in the criticism and audio reporting categories. O’Toole and The Times shared the audio prize with journalists from “This American Life” and Vice.
. . . .
The Pulitzer judges cited O’Toole and Vice freelancer Emily Green for “The Out Crowd,” broadcast on NPR’s “This American Life,” for “revelatory, intimate journalism that illuminates the personal impact of the Trump administration’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy.”
O’Toole, 33, had covered immigration and border security for a decade and decided to look closely at a new policy targeting asylum seekers, not just people who had illegally crossed the border.
She found veteran asylum officers deeply troubled by directives that in effect forced them to push many Mexican and Central American immigrants back to deadly violence in their home countries.
“The officers felt very strongly about refugee asylum and the idea of the U.S. as a safe haven,” she said. “Now they were taking part in a policy that they felt was wrong, morally and legally. But they had few choices, either continue being part of this administration or quit and lose their career.”
Audio reporting is a new Pulitzer category in 2020.
. . . .
*****************************
Read Joe’s full report at the link.
Congrats and thanks to Molly, Emily, and the folks at “This American Life” for all they do!👍
They are making a permanent record of the disgusting Human Rights abuses ☠️ and lawlessness of the Trump regime for posterity, even as the Supremes and Congress gutlessly look the other way 👎!
The hiring plan documents show shortened hiring timelines and suggest preference given to judges with records of rulings against immigrants. The documents also demonstrate the influence held over the board by the political leadership of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees the nation’s immigration court system, particularly its director, James McHenry.
“The [hiring] processes previously in place were cumbersome and not efficient but what we’re seeing with this hiring plan is that they’ve really eviscerated any protections that were put in place … to create a flexible process to fit their political priorities,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at AILA. “It’s very unclear and opaque and provides the leeway to manipulate the process.”
An EOIR official, who would only comment if identified as an agency spokeswoman, said its current process is “open, competitive, merit-based.”
“During the most recent hiring cycle, every interview panelist was a career (i.e. not political) employee, which would not have been possible under the previous procedures,” said the spokeswoman after CQ Roll Call reached out to EOIR for comment. “Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious.”
New roles
Under the current administration, the Justice Department has rapidly expanded the board. In 2018, it went from 17 members to 21. On March 31, the department announced a new rule, effective the next day, expanding the board to 23 members.
McHenry first advertised for new positions in fall 2018. But instead of referring to them as “board members,” as they had been historically described, he called them “appellate judges,” a reflection of other changes to come. Instead of working out of the board’s office in Falls Church, Va., appellate judges could work from any immigration court in the country.
They also could review cases at both the trial and the appellate level — creating potential conflicts of interest.
EOIR said its office first proposed that designation in 2000.
“Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States,” the agency spokeswoman said.
True, said Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union, the National Association of Immigration Judges. But she noted judges in an independent judiciary don’t hear cases at the trial and appellate level at the same time.
“They are taking these concepts and they’re mashing them up together to essentially walk away from the traditional court model,” she said, adding that she believes conflating the roles could be a way to dilute union membership.
Tabaddor and others are currently fighting the Justice Department over its move in January to decertify the judges’ union.
Faster hiring process
In 2008, a DOJ Inspector General investigation found widespread political hiring at the board. As a result, to curb future practices, the department implemented a multi-layered process that entailed vetting by both political appointees and career professionals.
The current hiring process appears to chip away at the role career employees play in that process, and instead amplifies that of the EOIR director and other political appointees, according to Lynch and some other experts who reviewed the changes.
McHenry refers several times in one memo that he seeks to streamline the hiring process and make it more efficient. For instance, new openings on the board are now public for only 14 days, as opposed to the previous 30 days, to “begin the application review process more quickly,” McHenry writes in the memo.
In another step, current board members have to submit their evaluations of job candidates within three days, as opposed to a week. McHenry notes other tighter deadlines for other parts of the applicant screening process.
The changes raise concerns by immigration judges, lawyers and court observers about political appointees rushing preferred candidates, including those with unresolved complaints in their records, onto the board.
“Looks like another coverup for ‘expedited,’ predetermined, ideologically-based, ‘insider’ hiring,” Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who headed the Board of Immigration Appeals under President Bill Clinton, told CQ Roll Call via email.
Schmidt, who tracks every board hire and firing on a well-known immigration blog, described the current hiring process as “a fraud and a joke — but not so funny when we consider the human lives at stake.”
According to a former longtime member of the appeals board who served under McHenry, EOIR’s director has manipulated even the newly laid out hiring process. “Everyone knows that he was changing the process along the way to ensure he got the candidates he pre-selected,” said the former board member, who spoke to CQ Roll Call on the condition of anonymity because of fear of agency retribution.
EOIR leaders did not respond to questions posed to agency leaders specifically regarding this allegation.
. . . .
**********************
Read Tanvi’s full article at the link.
Actually, I’m neither neither “ignorant [nor] mendacious.” I probably know more about EOIR than anyone alive. I”ll certainly put my knowledge of immigration law and due process up against anyone at the DOJ today!
The proof of any merit based hiring system is in the results. Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside the world of DOJ politicos and the restrictionist right would claim that the last half-dozen selections for the BIA are the “best and the brightest.” None of them actually have any recent relevant experience representing migrants or asylum seekers.
There must be hundreds if not thousands of immigration practitioners out there who would be better qualified and more deserving of these jobs. Under current conditions, what would a civil servant not actually involved in Immigration Court practice know about what makes a good BIA Appellate Immigration Judge? What would they know about legal issues facing the immigrant community? Next to nothing, to put it generously. So, what’s the benefit of involving them except to “rubber stamp” and “launder” Director McHenry’s anti-immigrant preselections. That’s exactly what the “inside” source in Tanvi’s article confirms!
What is badly needed and sorely lacking is input from the immigration bar and the NGOs who actually practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA and have seen the unmitigated due process and fundamental fairness disaster that unfolds every day under this Administration. That’s the way other judicial “merit selection” systems are run — with input from outside Government, indeed some even get input from influential non-lawyers within the community being served by the courts.
Such a system was actually used on a number of occasions during the Clinton Administration. And, hiring then didn’t take anywhere near as long as it has under the bloated, biased, and opaque systems employed by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. Not surprisingly, every appointment to the BIA since 2000 has been some type of “government insider.”
Today’s BIA is largely White, Male, Anglo, and restrictionist. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the community that the Immigration Courts are supposed to be serving. Indeed, it bears little resemblance to the composition of today’s America or the attitudes of the majority of Americans toward migrants.
Even with tons of “undue deference” given to the BIAby the Article IIIs, scarcely a week goes by without the Article IIIs highlighting some grossly defective performance in the BIA’s interpretation and application of the basics of immigration law and due process. Yet, the BIA selection process makes no effort to encourage or promote private sector applicants renowned and respected in the larger legal community for their scholarship, professionalism, and problem-solving skills. Indeed, some Immigration Judges with just those skills have prematurely been driven from the bench by this Administration’s racially biased and fundamentally unfair manipulation of the Immigration Court process.
The BIA’s bogus hiring process is a prime example of fraud, waste, and abuse. And the failure of Congress and the Article III Courts to put an end to this ridiculous perversion of justice is a disgraceful act of complicity in the disgusting “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”
INTERESTING HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE:The current 23 Board Members is where the BIA was in 2001 before the “Ashcroft Purge” artificially reduced the BIA to 12 Members to eliminate dialogue, suppress dissent, and skew results to favor DHS without any meaningful deliberation or internal opposition. In other words, creating a false impression of consensus by shutting out dissent. The immediate cratering of the quality of the BIA’s decision making caused an uproar of resistance and criticism in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Since then, the Immigration Courts have been in a two-decade-long “death spiral” with due process, fundamental fairness, judicial integrity, efficiency, and human lives among the victims.
Here’s more from Laura Lynch over at AILA about the ongoing farce at EOIR and the BIA 🤡☠️:
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American RacismStephen Miller & Count Olaf Evil Twins, Notorious Child AbusersCaitlin Dickerson National Immigration Reporter NY TimesMichael D. Shear White House Reporter NY Times
Caitlin Dickerson and Michael D. Shear report for The NY Times:
From the early days of the Trump administration, Stephen Miller, the president’s chief adviser on immigration, has repeatedly tried to use an obscure law designed to protect the nation from diseases overseas as a way to tighten the borders.
The question was, which disease?
Mr. Miller pushed for invoking the president’s broad public health powers in 2019, when an outbreak of mumps spread through immigration detention facilities in six states. He tried again that year when Border Patrol stations were hit with the flu.
When vast caravans of migrants surged toward the border in 2018, Mr. Miller looked for evidence that they carried illnesses. He asked for updates on American communities that received migrants to see if new disease was spreading there.
In 2018, dozens of migrants became seriously ill in federal custody, and two under the age of 10 died within three weeks of each other. While many viewed the incidents as resulting from negligence on the part of the border authorities, Mr. Miller instead argued that they supported his argument that President Trump should use his public health powers to justify sealing the borders.
On some occasions, Mr. Miller and the president, who also embraced these ideas, were talked down by cabinet secretaries and lawyers who argued that the public health situation at the time did not provide sufficient legal basis for such a proclamation.
That changed with the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic.
Within days of the confirmation of the first case in the United States, the White House shut American land borders to nonessential travel, closing the door to almost all migrants, including children and teenagers who arrived at the border with no parent or other adult guardian. Other international travel restrictions were introduced, as well as a pause on green card processing at American consular offices, which Mr. Miller told conservative allies in a recent private phone call was only the first step in a broader plan to restrict legal immigration.
But what has been billed by the White House as an urgent response to the coronavirus pandemic was in large part repurposed from old draft executive orders and policy discussions that have taken place repeatedly since Mr. Trump took office and have now gained new legitimacy, three former officials who were involved in the earlier deliberations said.
One official said the ideas about invoking public health and other emergency powers had been on a “wish list” of about 50 ideas to curtail immigration that Mr. Miller crafted within the first six months of the administration.
Latest Updates: Coronavirus Outbreak in the U.S.
President Trump stepped up criticism of China, part of an international backlash over the outbreak.
J. Crew becomes first major retailer to declare bankruptcy; Disney’s empire faces vast challenges.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments by conference call, and the public will be able to listen.
See more updates
Updated 48m ago
More live coverage: Global Markets New York
He had come up with the proposals, the official said, by poring through not just existing immigration laws, but the entire federal code to look for provisions that would allow the president to halt the flow of migrants into the United States.
Administration officials have repeatedly said the latest measures are needed to prevent new cases of infection from entering the country.
“This is a public health order that we’re operating under right now,” Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters earlier this month. “This is not about immigration. What’s transpiring right now is purely about infectious disease and public health.”
The White House declined to comment on the matter, but a senior administration official confirmed details of the past discussions.
The architect of the president’s assault on immigration and one of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers inside the White House, Mr. Miller has relentlessly pushed for tough restrictions on legal and illegal immigration, including policies that sought to separate families crossing the southwest border, force migrants seeking asylum to wait in squalid camps in Mexico and deny green cards to poor immigrants.
Mr. Miller argues that reducing immigration will protect jobs for American workers and keep communities safe from criminals. But critics accuse him of targeting nonwhite immigrants, pointing in part to leaked emails from his time before entering the White House in which he cited white nationalist websites and magazines and promoted theories popular with white nationalist groups.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
As America suffers, immigrants, both legal and “undocumented,” are on the front lines of those “essential workers” risking their lives to keep us healthy, safe, fed, and clothed.
Meanwhile, neo-Nazi Miller remains “on the dole” — publicly funded for putting out a steady stream of discredited and xenophobic actions designed to exploit, dehumanize, and demean many of the most courageous and necessary among us.
Can it get any more vile and disgusting?
Nearly 55 years after the end of WWII, Trump & Miller are reviving many aspects of the racist ideology and actions that we supposedly fought to end forever. Raises the question of who really won the war.
Always the opportunists, Trump and Miller now see the crisis that their “malicious incompetence” helped to aggravate as a chance to target both “Optional Practical Training” (“OPT”) for foreign students and Chinese students, one of the largest groups of those studying in the U.S. You can read about it in this article by Stuart Anderson in Forbes.https://apple.news/ADkCNTe_gTje__BlQ8c-8pg
Stuart Anderson Executive Director National Foundation for American Policy
OPT unquestionably benefits our country as well as the students, many of whom remain and become important parts of our society. The targeting of Chinese students certainly fits with the far right’s Anti-Asian movement that has helped spike a notable increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans during the pandemic. Could the revival of the Chinese Exclusion Act be far beyond on the Trump/Miller Jim Crow agenda?
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
In late March, I argued in an earlier version of this paper that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should immediately embark on an aggressive program of release, supervised release and alternative-to-detention (ATD) programs for immigrant detainees in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.[1] Since that time, the number of immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention has fallen by nearly 8,400, but not nearly as fast or dramatically as necessary, given the perilous conditions in which nearly 30,000 immigrant detainees remain and how rapidly the virus has swept through immigrant detention facilities throughout the country and beyond.
The Size of the Crisis
On March 17, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that there were no “confirmed” cases of COVID-19 in its detention centers, a meaningless claim given the paucity of testing and the certainty of “unconfirmed” cases, as affirmed by ensuing lawsuits.[2] A month later, ICE reported 124 confirmed cases. Six weeks later, as of May 1, this number had more than quadrupled to 522 cases in 34 facilities, as well as 39 confirmed cases among ICE employees in those facilities (ICE 2020b).[3]
Yet ICE’s figures point to only the tip of the iceberg. By mid-April, ICE had tested only 300-400 detainees for COVID-19 infection (Misra 2020). By May 1, it had tested 1,073 detainees, a very low percentage of those in its custody during the course of the pandemic (ICE 2020b). Moreover, ICE figures do not count former detainees who contracted COVID-19 in its custody,[4] a large number of whom were deported prior to being tested (Dickerson and Semple 2020). Nor do they count the infected staff of ICE contractors, including employees of the private corporations that own and operate its largest detention centers and that administer many state and local ICE contract facilities.[5] On April 2, for example, ICE reported no confirmed cases of infected detainees, but one suspected case, at the massive Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia (Stewart). CoreCivic, one of ICE’s largest private detention contractors, operates Stewart.[6] By April 10, ICE “knew of” 30 suspected and five confirmed cases at Stewart.[7] As of April 28, 42 CoreCivic employees and one ICE employee at Stewart had tested positive for COVID-19 (Stokes 2020). In an April 21 email to Mark Dow, Amanda Gilchrist, the Director of Public Affairs at CoreCivic said there had been 98 positive cases among CoreCivic staff since the onset of the pandemic, a number that did not count staff who had “recovered from COVID-19” and received “a doctor’s clearance to return to work” (on file with author).
ICE has confirmed that “a number of non-ICE employees (contractors) in facilities that hold ICE detainees have contracted COVID-19, and some of them died from COVID-19” (Tanvi 2020). However, it has been “unable to determine how many non-ICE personnel in state and local jails have contracted COVID-19 or died from COVID-19” (ibid.). Finally, it reports that “some non-ICE detainees in non-ICE facilities, shared with ICE detainees, also contracted COVID-19, and some of them died from COVID-19” (ibid.).
As of March 21, 38,058 immigrants were in ICE custody. By April 25, this number had dropped to 29,675 including 15,855 persons apprehended by ICE and Homeland Security Investigations, and 13,820 referred by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (ICE 2020a). By way of comparison, Canada – which detains many times fewer immigrants than the United States – released more than one-half of those in its custody between March 17 and April 19 (Global News 2020).
As of April 25, ICE still unconscionably held 5,261 persons who had established “persecution” and “torture” claims, and who should not be detained in any circumstances, much less the present. It also continues to detain persons approved for release. In a particularly disturbing report, detainees in New York cannot post bond because of the closure of ICE’s New York City office (Katz 2020). Finally, it continues to detain families and minors. On April 13, the Washington Post reported that the population at ICE’s three family detention centers had fallen from 1,350 to 826 persons (Hsu 2020). By April 21, the number had fallen to 698 persons, including 342 minors.[8]
On March 28, a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to “make and record continuous efforts” to release the more than 5,000 minors in ICE family detention facilities and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelter-like facilities for unaccompanied minors.[9] Her decision recognized the “severity of the harm” to which children in these facilities, particularly ICE facilities, “are exposed and the public’s interest in preventing outbreaks of COVID-19 … that will infect ICE and ORR staff, spread to others in geographic proximity, and likely overwhelm local healthcare systems.” On April 24, the judge ordered ORR and ICE to continue “to make every effort to promptly and safely release” children with “suitable custodians.”[10]
ICE Policies and Procedures
ICE can decrease its detention population in two main ways, by admitting fewer immigrants into its system and by more generous and, in the circumstances, appropriate release standards. It has failed to move decisively enough in either direction.
. . . .
********************
Read Don’s complete article at the link.
Thanks Don!
In this regime, the Gulag is all about using the “facade” of euphemistically-named “civil immigration detention” as a way of punishing those who have the audacity to assert their legal rights, to limit their Fifth Amendment and statutory rights to counsel, to inhibit their ability to understand the applicable legal criteria and prepare their cases, to coerce them into abandoning claims for relief and waiving appeals, and to send “deterrent messages” to others.
What it doesn’t have much connection with these days is insuring appearance and protecting the public. Relatively few detained individuals have criminal records that present a realistic threat. Also, all reputable studies show that when individuals are represented by counsel, community alternatives to detention are used, and individuals actually understand the requirements, the appearance rate for those with asylum or other claims for relief approach 100%.
So, the Gulag is largely an expensive and dangerous fraud. That’s not to say that other Administrations haven’t misused detention of non-criminals. It been more or less increasing over the past four decades — ever since the Mariel Boatlift. But, this regime has gone “above and beyond” in the intentionally cruel, unnecessary, and coercive expansion and abuse of the Gulag.
The BIA has abandoned any attempt to bring integrity and uniformity to the bond system. Instead, they have adopted a “screw the individual, kiss up to Barr, Miller, & the White Nationalist politicos who run this dysfunctional system.”
The response from the Article IIIs has been mixed.
Hopefully, the extensive U.S. District Court detention litigation across the country will finally “open the eyes” of the Article III Judiciary to the callous disregard of human life and welfare and the abusive, racially driven, punitive intent fueling the regime’s “Gulag expansion.”
A San Diego federal judge ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review for release a list of newly identified detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center who would be at high risk for serious health complications if they get COVID-19.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request to create a subclass of people at high risk under the pandemic, which has spread widely within the facility. The judge made his decision after learning that the facility’s warden had undercounted the number of people in that category in his initial declaration for the case.
“That information is significant,” Sabraw told attorneys during a telephonic hearing Thursday. “It does change measurably the underlying facts and whether or not the petitioners are entitled to relief.”
A spokeswoman for CoreCivic, the private prison company that runs the facility, said that the initial report sent to the judge was compiled with data from ICE Health Service Corps, which provides the medical care at the facility, and the report “was made with the best available information we had from our partners at the time.”
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of Kate’s article at the link.
There was a time, long ago, when a Government agency’s submission of false, materially incomplete, or misleading information to a Federal Court would have earned sanctions up to and including threats of contempt from a U.S. District Judge. Sadly, bending the truth, omitting material information, and outright lies have become “the norm” for DHS and DOJ under Trump.
Indeed, the burden is now on the plaintiffs, often serving pro bono and stretched to the limit, to show and document for the courts each false, incomplete, or misleading affirmation from the Government. Against reason and the clear record over the past three years, FederalCourts continue to presume the proven unlikely — nay, likely impossible — that a regime led by a pathological liar and his toadies will provide them true, accurate, and complete information about anything!
Instead of asylum applicants being given “the benefit of the doubt,” as our law is supposed to require, that benefit of the doubt is now being given to an overtly bigoted and dishonest Executive who in no way has earned or deserved it. Everything has been turned upside down.
But, until the Article III Courts take actions to insure that this regime respects the integrity of the process, the practice of “lie, obfuscate, and mislead first and see if they catch you” will continue largely unabated. Vulnerable migrants aren’t the only victims here. Failing to force the regime to act in an honest, ethical, and professional manner in Federal litigation is eroding the integrity of the Article III Courts all the way up to the complicit Supremes.
Remember, several years ago, the DHS and DOJ lied to Federal Courts and the public about the existence of Sessions’s “child separation policy.” Two years later, they continue to feed erroneous information to the courts with impunity. But, who’s surprised when in the meantime the Supremes’ majority has sent such a powerful and consistent message that “Brown Lives Don’t Matter” and they won’t examine the truth or actual motivation behind any Executive attack on the rights, lives, and safety of migrants.
Here’s a report from a member of the NDPA and a Courtside reader on the front lines of the battle to save humanity: “[T]wo of our clients detained in Otay Mesa Detention Center were finally released after a Federal Judge issued a TRO. I am relieved. ICE has been unreasonable and in my opinion reckless with the lives of people in detention and even their own employees. . . .And the attorneys at the ACLU are the true heroes here and . . . students.”
Why is this abject failure of responsible Government and absence of powerful, coordinated, courageous judging that puts an end to these human rights abuses acceptable? Why isn’t our Supreme Court delivering a powerful message that Executive dishonesty, denials of due process, systemic detentionabuses, and disregard of established human rights principles aren’t acceptable in 21st Century America? Why is “Dred Scottification” the new policy endorsed by the “JR Five” on the Supremes?
Until we get better Federal Judges willing to stand up to Executive abuses and a Congress that retakes its responsibility to legislate and oversee the Executive in the area of immigration and human rights, it will continue to fall to the private bar and NGO lawyers to force officials among our failed institutions in all three Branches to do their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. But, it’s the only way it does work in today’s America. Thank goodness for the (non-regime) lawyers!
Judge Tsankov writes solely in her capacity as Eastern Region Vice President with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) in the ABA Journal:
April 28, 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS
Human Rights at Risk: The Immigration Courts Are in Need of an Overhaul
The views expressed here do not represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the attorney general, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.
by Hon. Mimi Tsankov
Share this:
“While immigration courts reside within the executive branch, they should not be merely a tool to achieve desired policy outcomes.”
—Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
So wrote Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in his February 13, 2020, letter to Attorney General William Barr, in which he and eight members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called upon Barr to take action against, what he termed, an increasingly troubling politicization of the immigration court adjudication process.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for those seeking human rights protection in the form of asylum and other forms of relief from persecution and torture. Individual liberty and personal safety interests are often at stake in immigration court proceedings where immigration judges have the authority to grant protection from persecution. Id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. 1158. Whitehouse gave voice to what is becoming an alarming trend—the increasing political influence over individual immigration cases. This action, he explained, is undermining the public’s confidence in the immigration courts and creating an impression that “cases are being decided based on political considerations rather than the relevant facts and law. The appearance of bias alone is corrosive to the public trust.” Whitehouse Letter, supra, at 5; see also, 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a(b)(4)(A) and (B); 8 C.F.R. 1003.10(b).
It is important to note that these concerns are being expressed on the heels of what some see as growing impunity within the executive branch, focused almost single-mindedly on the speed of removal hearings at the risk of diminished due process. See Statement of Jeremy McKinney, Secretary, American Immigration Lawyer’s Association, NPR, Justice Department Rolls Out Quotas for Immigration Judges (April 3, 2018). The Justice Department is being charged with implementing a host of policies that diminish the primary responsibility of ensuring a fair hearing. For the past three years, the attorney general has used a process known as “certification,” a power historically used sparingly, to overrule decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals and set binding precedent. Id. Some have argued that the frequency with which this procedure has recently been employed borders on abuse as it seeks to severely limit the number of immigrants who can remain in the United States. Whitehouse Letter, supra, at 5. Equally troubling is the charge that the attorney general is using certification as a way to overrule immigration judges whose decisions don’t align with the administration’s immigration agenda. Id.
One area of particular concern is the recent encroachment by the agency into judicial independence. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which is the union representing sitting immigration judges, argues, alongside many others in the legal community, that these incursions into judicial independence are part of a broader effort to fundamentally alter how immigration removal cases are adjudicated, and that such actions are having deleterious effects. See Statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System” 2 (Apr. 18, 2018).
An overcrowded, fenced area holds families at a border patrol station in McAllen, Texas.
Thomas Cizauskas from Flickr
Among the new measures implemented by the Justice Department are unrealistic and impractical one-size-fits-all case quotas and deadlines that squeeze immigration judges where they are most vulnerable—their status as “employees.” If an immigration judge provides one too many case continuances, even though related to a valid due process concern, she risks being terminated. Every pause for judicial reflection, or break for much needed legal research, risks slowing down the “deportation machinery” that the adjudication process is veering toward and threatens to eviscerate procedural due process, even though such due process is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Id.
These controversial new policies have become so pervasive and so threatening to judicial independence that they have raised alarms. What began in 2018 as a few dramatic instances involving the abrupt removal and reassignment of cases from an immigration judge’s docket previewed the agency’s more recent alarming actions where the shuffling of scores of cases and entire dockets sometimes multiple times within a single day has become the norm. The endless docket shuffling, and the chasing of performance “completions” that correspond to a job-preserving metric, seems designed to make political statements rather than ensuring victims of human rights abuses are afforded due process. A complex, multi-witness, multi-issue hearing is afforded the same value as an order of removal for failure to appear at a hearing. See Mimi Tsankov, Judicial Independence Sidelined: Just One More Symptom of an Immigration System Reeling, 55 Cal. W. L. Rev. 2 (2019).
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov serves as eastern region vice president with the National Association of Immigration Judges and has been a full-time immigration judge since 2006.
**************************
Read Judge Tsankov’s complete article at the link.Thanks Judge Tsankov. You are a “True American Hero!” 🗽🎖👩⚖️👍🏼
The situation in the Immigration Courts is totally out of control and unacceptable. Both Congress and the Article III Courts have failed in their duties to require and enforce the “fair and impartial adjudication” required by the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution.
These grotesque derelictions of duty are inexcusable. They call not just for an independent Immigration Court but also for “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate and a total rethinking of what qualities should be required for the privilege of serving for life in the Article III Judiciary.
While there are many Article III derelictions of duty out there (and some courageous performances, particularly among the ranks of U.S. District Judges), I’m specifically highlighting the disgraceful performance of the “J.R. Five” ☠️🤮👎🏻 on the Supremes, who have been AWOL on Due Process, immigration, human rights, and humanity itself when our country needs them most. Never again! We need a better Supreme Court, one that lives up to its role as America’s highest tribunal entrusted with protecting our Constitutional, individual, and human rights! John Marshall must be turning over in his grave with the wimpy performance of John Roberts in the face of Executive tyranny and contempt for our Constitution!
Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts & Star Chambers, Never!
This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!
Genna Beier Deputy Public Defender Immigration Unit San FranciscoHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
Round Table Member Judge Ilyce Shugall & Genna Beier, Deputy Public Defender report:
Hi all,
I write with wonderful news from the Zepeda Rivas crew. Judge Chhabria granted our motion for provisional class certification and motion for temporary restraining order. See attached!
He found that “the plaintiffs have demonstrated an exceedingly strong likelihood that they will prevail on their claim that current conditions at the facilities violate class members’ due process rights by unreasonably exposing them to a significant risk of harm.”
He also faulted the government for failing to be ready with basic information about class members:
“[C]ounsel for ICE asserted that it will take a significant amount of time for the agency to prepare a list of detainees with health vulnerabilities because it is ‘burdensome.’ The fact that ICE does not have such a list at the ready, six weeks after Governor Newsom shut down the entire state and one week after this lawsuit was filed, speaks volumes about where the safety of the people at these facilities falls on ICE’s list of priorities.” (emphasis added). ZING!!
He ordered ICE to provide records. Then, we will begin a process of individualized “bail” applications (“[T]his Court—likely with the assistance of several Magistrate Judges—will consider bail applications from class members over a roughly 14-day period.”). We don’t know yet what that process will look like, and we’ll have an opportunity to discuss it at a case management conference tomorrow. We’ll update you, of course.
If you haven’t already, please fill out the attached form for your clients! At tomorrow’s hearing want to be able to give the judge a survey of the individuals for whom we have clear release plans, for example. (Tips: try to use Adobe; if all else fails, save as PDF and email to me).
Lastly, we’ve got an amazing team of ACLU, SFPD, LCCR and UC Berkeley Law School people ready to take calls from unrepresented people in detention to start gathering info for bail applications. Please tell your clients to spread the following Lyon pin to others in their dorm who do not have attorneys to fill out these forms for them.
NUMBER TO CALL FOR UNREPRESENTED FOLKS: 7654
Folks will be on shifts taking calls from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. Spread the word!
Genna
************************
Congratulations, Team!👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Thank goodness! Another courageous U.S. District Judge refusing to “buy into” the regime’s disingenuous, immoral “no problem until the bodies start piling up, it’s only the lives of migrants, not ‘real humans’” approach.
Imagine what would happen if all Federal Judges were willing to act on their oaths of office and uniformly reject all aspects of the regime’s unlawful, unconstitutional “Dred Scottification” program directed at “deterrence through death, disease, and dehumanization.” What would it take? What if the families of Federal Judges were treated with the same basic disregard for due process, life, health, and human dignity as the regime inflicts on migrants? What if the corrupt officials carrying out these programs and the lawyers who defend them were actually held accountable for their actions by the Federal Courts rather than largely being given “free passes”?
What if we had a Government that actually respected our Constitution rather than seeking to shred it?
“We conclude again today, as we did when presented with the preliminary injunction, that the Attorney General cannot pursue the policy objectives of the executive branch through the power of the purse or the arm of local law enforcement; that is not within its delegation. It is the prerogative of the legislative branch and the local governments, and the Attorney General’s assertion that Congress itself provided that authority in the language of the statutes cannot withstand scrutiny. … Accordingly, we affirm the grants of declaratory relief as to the declarations that the Attorney General exceeded the authority delegated by Congress in the Byrne JAG statute, 34 U.S.C. § 10151 et seq., and in 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a), in attaching the challenged conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 grants, and that the Attorney General’s decision to attach the conditions to the FY 2017 and FY 2018 Byrne JAG grants violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. In light of our determination as to the language in § 10153, it is unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of § 1373 under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. We affirm the district court’s grant of injunctive relief as to the application of the challenged conditions to the Byrne JAG grant program-wide now and in the future, which included enjoining the Attorney General from denying or delaying issuance of the Byrne JAG award to grants in FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019 and any other future program year insofar as that denial or delay is based on the challenged conditions or materially identical conditions. We remand for the district court to determine if any other injunctive relief is appropriate in light of our determination that § 10153 cannot be used to incorporate laws unrelated to the grants or grantees. Finally, because the injunctive relief is necessary to provide complete relief to Chicago itself, the concern with improperly extending relief beyond the particular plaintiff does not apply, and therefore there is no reason to stay the application of the injunctive relief.”
**********************
The complete 111-page decision is available at the above link.
The 7th Circuit Panel was BAUER, MANION, AND ROVNER, Circuit Judges. The opinion is by Judge Rovner. Judge Manion filed a separate opinion concurring in the legal analysis, but dissenting from the nationwide scope of the injunction.
Some Federal Courts stand up for our rights in the face of Trump’s tyranny; others “roll over.” History will be their judge!
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the “JR Five” on the Supremes — who seldom see a White Nationalist abuse of authority picking on immigrants that they aren’t willing to validate — will “torque the law and the facts as necessary” to further the regime’s scofflaw, xenophobic agenda.
History eventually will catch up with them too. History recognizes neither life tenure nor “absolute immunity.”
“Today U.S. District Court Judge Richard Martinez ordered the federal government to release an immigrant detained at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC), AKA Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC), who is at high risk of serious illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. The Court ordered the release of Mr. Pimentel, a 65-year old man who has been a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1996, but was placed in removal proceedings after pleading guilty to a drug offense. After completing his sentence, Mr. Pimentel returned to live with his family in Salt Lake City, Utah, but was subsequently arrested by ICE in May of 2019 after he appeared for an appointment. ICE ultimately transferred Mr. Pimentel to the detention center in Tacoma, Washington.
Judge Martinez found that federal immigration authorities “detain Petitioner at the NWIPC in conditions that create a substantial risk he will be exposed to the coronavirus and contract COVID-19.”
Judge Martinez relied on declarations from public health experts stating that once COVID-19 reaches the detention center it will spread like “wildfire.” The Court noted that experts have attributed a mortality rate as high as 15% for high risk individuals who contract COVID-19. Judge Martinez ultimately concluded that “Petitioner has made a clear showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm due to the conditions of his present confinement and the fact that he is at higher risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.”
Judge Martinez ordered that Mr. Pimentel be immediately released. He will now be permitted to return to live with his son and daughter-in-law in Salt Lake City while he waits for his immigration case to be completed.
Wonder how many more “Mr. Pimentels” are out there in the Gulag but in the wrong jurisdiction or without the good fortune to get the legal representation necessary to secure release?
What if we had a functional, impartial, expert U.S. Immigration Court that could order release of folks like this without protracted litigation in the U.S. District Courts? Indeed, what’s the purpose of a so-called “court system” that’s incapable of doing much of anything except “rubber stamping” the unconstitutional actions and extraordinarily poor judgments of DHS officials and their contractors?
Two things stand out about this outcome: first, the remarkable philosophical flexibility of the Court’s conservatives when their political allies appear before them. The case is only the latestinstance in which they have tacitly endorsed some of the president’s more aggressive legal arguments, legitimizing his use of anti-immigrant fearmongering as public policy.
As Professor Nancy Morawetz detailed at the ImmigrationProf Blog, the majority reached its conclusion by selectively applying rules for analyzing vague laws—rules that, if applied to Barton’s case, might have led to a different result. Conservative judges often argue for resolving ambiguities by focusing on the plain meaning of statutory text. As a result, they are supposedly reluctant to assume that any statutory language is redundant or superfluous. (When the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservatives decided Democratic Governor Tony Evers couldn’t postpone in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, they leaned heavily on this principle.) But here, the majority’s reasoning required treating part of the text as redundant. Kavanaugh barely bothered to address this divergence from prevailing conservative judicial philosophy: He simply stated that “redundancies are common in statutory drafting,” and that in this case, “the better overall reading of the statute contains some redundancy.”
“That is not the argument you would expect from the conservative wing of the Court,” Professor Morawetz wrote. “It is hard to walk away without the sense that there are different statutory interpretation rules at work for those who are powerful and those who are not.”
The majority and dissenting opinions also contrast sharply in the extent to which the justices considered the impact of their decision on Barton, his family, and other people like Barton whose fates this case determined. The majority begins with a recitation of his involvement with the criminal legal system, noting his convictions “on three separate occasions spanning 12 years.” Later, Kavanaugh takes care to name the substances—methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana—involved in the drug arrests, and describes the gun and assault convictions using lurid, cinematic language, explaining that Barton and a friend “shot up” an ex-girlfriend’s house. (This phrase is decidedly not a legal term of art.) Read together, these rhetorical flourishes evoke a familiar stereotype: a scary, drug-involved career criminal who is liable to start shooting at any moment.
The Barton described in Sotomayor’s dissent, which all four liberal justices signed, sounds like a different person altogether. She carefully lays out the facts of Barton’s early life, personal challenges, and subsequent accomplishments—valuable context that Kavanaugh and company conspicuously omitted. (The details about his background included in the beginning of this article come primarily from her opinion.) For example, it was Barton’s friend, Sotomayor notes, who actually fired at the ex-girlfriend’s house. In court, Barton testified that he didn’t know the friend even had a gun, let alone planned to shoot it.
The rest of the dissent fills in more of the blanks left by the majority. She writes about Barton’s stints in boot camp and rehab, and praises him for getting his GED diploma, graduating from college, and leading “a law-abiding life.” She notes that his drug convictions were for possession, not distribution, and linked them to his since-resolved dependency. She frames Barton’s three convictions against the backdrop of his 30 years in the United States, not the 12-year period in which they occurred. And she quotes the immigration judge who evaluated Barton’s initial application for mercy and badly wanted to approve it; he “is clearly rehabilitated,” the judge said, and his family “relies on him and would suffer hardship” if he were deported.
At every juncture, Sotomayor emphasizes the real-world implications of what the conservatives presented as a rather dry question of statutory interpretation: By the time immigration authorities put Andre Barton in removal proceedings, every member of his immediate family was living in America. Deporting him deprives his family of its primary provider, and sends him off to a country he hasn’t seen in decades.
Not until the very end of Kavanaugh’s opinion does he begin to grapple with the stakes of the case before him. “Removal of a lawful permanent resident … is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members,” he wrote. “Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States.”
Just as quickly as he began to acknowledge Barton’s humanity, though, Kavanaugh returned to emphasizing the length of Barton’s rap sheet and the gravity of his transgressions. Congress chose to provide for the deportation of immigrants who commit “serious crimes,” he reasons, and to cut off those with “substantial criminal records” from the possibility of relief; the law, he writes, does not extend leniency to someone who “has amassed a criminal record of this kind.” Put differently, the Court’s conservatives are not responsible for what happened to Andre Barton; Barton, in their telling, did this to himself.
The exact words the justices use while resolving arcane questions about obscure immigration statutes may not seem significant. But when the choice the Court ultimately makes is so callously indifferent to the plight of vulnerable people, framing becomes a critical tool for defending their deliberative process. The decision in Barton v. Barr enables an unapologetically anti-immigrant president to deport longtime legal residents over events that took place years ago, breaking up families and depriving children of their parents and parents of their children. Kavanaugh knows this perfectly well; he acknowledges as much in his opinion. By sketching a two-dimensional portrait of Andre Barton as a dangerous ex-con and ignoring decades of growth and development since, Kavanaugh and the conservatives quietly absolve themselves of any moral obligation to think about it.
Jay Willis is a senior contributor at The Appeal.
*********************
Read Jay’s complete article at the link.
Yup. No surprise to readers of Courtside.
While, as usual, I was willing to give J.R. and his merry band the “benefit of the doubt,” presuming at least some modicum of intellectual honesty and human decency regardless of philosophical disposition, I’ve been “onto” the judicial, intellectual, and moral fraud going on at our highest Court for some time now.
Yeah, on a few occasions (see, e.g., Pereira, Guerrero-Lasprilla) some members of “The Five” have had no choice but to recognize that there was no possible way to justify some aspects of the Administration’s vendetta against immigrants and asylum seekers. But, on the big questions, from the bogus “Travel Ban,” to the cruel, inhuman, and clearly illegal and unconstitutional “Let ’Em Die in Mexico” Program, to the illegal White Nationalist scheme to misapply “public charge” grounds to attack the health and welfare of ethnic communities, “The Five” have been out front on the White Nationalist movement to “Dred Scottify” and dehumanize “the other.”
To be fair, the BIA decision here Matter of Jurado-Delgado, 24 I&N Dec. 24 I&N Dec. 29 (BIA 2006), originated years ago, in the “Post-Ashcroft-Purge-Era” of the BIA, during the Bush II Administration. But, all that shows is that the BIA’s drift away from the most fair and humane interpretations of the immigration laws and toward “enforcement friendly jurisprudence,” has been going on for the last two decades, across three different Administrations. However, under Trump, Sessions, Whitaker, & now Barr that “drift” has now become a “mad dash to the bottom.”
Thanks to folks like Jay Willis, Professor Nancy Morawetz, and other lawyers, commentators, and journalists, history will not let the “J.R. Five” escape unscathed for their corrupt backing of “The New Jim Crow.”
Due Process Forever! Jim Crow & Complicit Supremes, Never!
