Department of Justice – Page 289 – immigrationcourtside.com

Law360: U.S. Solicitor General — Plum Or Lemon?

Andrew Strickler at Law 360 suggests that what was once Washington’s “best legal job” might now be a “career ender” rather than a “career enhancer.” Still, probably a far cry from being the Commissioner of the “Legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service,” sometimes described as “the worst Presidential appointment in Government.”

Those of you who subscribe to Law 360 (I don’t, so all I read was the “teaser”) can read the full article here:

https://www.law360.com/articles/891376?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=articles_search

PWS

02/16/17

WashPost: Professors (And Former USG Senior Execs) Martin & Legomsky Analyze Judge Brinkema’s Travel Ban Decision — Religious Discrimination Finding Might Be Key To Opponents’ Future Success (Or Not)!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/why-virginia-matters-in-the-travel-ban-fight/2017/02/14/27cfff3c-f2ec-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.880047c24800

Rachel Weiner reports:

“’Judge Brinkema spells out a lot more; she really fleshes out one of the possible claims, and that’s the religious discrimination claim,’” said David Martin, a professor at the University of Virginia who, for many years, helped shape immigration policy inside the government. ‘That may well prove to be the strongest or more fruitful line of inquiry for the plaintiffs in these various cases, particularly if they’re trying to reach past green-card holders or people on immigrant visas. It’s hard to get there without a religious discrimination case of some kind.’”

. . . .

“’It was a very well-reasoned, thoughtful decision. Frankly, I think, a more careful decision than the 9th Circuit decision,’ said Steve Legomsky, former chief counsel for immigration services in the Department of Homeland Security. In her opinion, Legomsky said, Brinkema ‘pretty methodically went through the various statements by Trump. . . . They put great weight on the opinions of the former national security officials to show the absence of counterevidence from the Trump administration. For both of those reasons, I think the Virginia opinion is very important.’
Brinkema also brings to the case extensive national security experience. She presided over the trial of Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, among other high-profile cases.

‘It was a thoughtful opinion, it’s well considered, it wasn’t hastily done like some of these other decisions had to be in light of circumstances,’ said Justin Cox of the National Immigration Law Center. His group is involved in several lawsuits against the ban, including one filed in Maryland last week focused on refugees. That case is specifically focused on religious discrimination.

‘Legally [the Virginia ruling] is actually quite significant because it’s the first court to squarely hold that the executive order violates the establishment clause,’ Cox said.

The danger for opponents of the ban is that, should the Justice Department appeal Brinkema’s decision, they will face the more conservative 4th Circuit rather than the left-leaning 9th Circuit.

‘It would be a close call,’ Legomsky said. ‘There is such strong evidence of religious discrimination — it’s really hard to know.’”

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

As noted in this article, in addition to being leading academic “immigration gurus,” both Professor Martin and Professor Legomsky have lived in the “real world” of shaping Government policies and managing programs that actually implement those policies.

As they point out, while many of the objections to the “travel ban” could be eliminated by applying it just prospectively to those outside the U.S. who have not previously been admitted, that wouldn’t necessarily overcome Judge Brinkema’s finding that the “national security” reasons asserted by the Government in her court were merely “pretext” for unconstitutional religious discrimination.

While Justin Cox might be correct that the Fourth Circuit is not as liberal as the Ninth Circuit, that distinction probably would apply to every other Circuit Court of Appeals. Having spent 13 years as an Immigration Judge in Arlington, where my decisions ultimately could be reviewed by the Fourth Circuit and Fourth Circuit law applied, I found their immigration rulings very balanced. Indeed, they sometimes cited Ninth Circuit precedent and even were ahead of the Ninth in recognizing some migrants’ rights.

While the Fourth Circuit affirmed the overwhelming majority of BIA and Immigration Judge decisions in unpublished, non-precedential decisions, when they spoke in published precedents they always had important guidance to offer. The Fourth Circuit also was not afraid to stand up to the Government and “call them out” when necessary in the field of immigration.

And, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, we trial judges paid close attention. I think that the Fourth Circuit’s very fair and well-reasoned asylum jurisprudence, in some significant ways more faithful to the asylum law and regulations than rulings of the BIA, was one reason why asylum applicants were often successful in Arlington. That’s also why many asylum cases in Arlington could be resolved by the parties in “short hearings” based on extensive written documentation and application of the Fourth Circuit law.

There is also a wonderful pastel portrait of Judge Brinkema in her court with the full article at the link. Check it out!

PWS

02/16/17

HuffPost: AG Sessions Faces First Crisis — And It Isn’t Immigration!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sessions-flynn-trump-investigation-russia_us_58a3ac76e4b03df370db99e1?q74cewg9me0q6ko6r&&

Jessica Schulberg & Ryan J. Reilly Report on HuffPost:

“WASHINGTON ― Less than a week on the job as U.S. attorney general, Jeff Sessions faces a potentially explosive situation: He was a top adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, but he’s now overseeing the agency investigating members of that campaign.

The FBI, which falls under the umbrella of Sessions’ Justice Department, is leading a multi-agency probe of possible connections between Trump associates and the Russian government. Law enforcement and intelligence officials have phone records and intercepted calls that show members of Trump’s campaign repeatedly communicated with senior Russian intelligence officials in the months before the election, the New York Times reported Tuesday. Sessions has ties to at least two of the people who are reportedly under investigation.

The FBI is also separately examining intercepted communications between the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who served with Sessions as a member of the Trump campaign’s national security advisory council. The FBI interviewed Flynn days into the Trump presidency, according to The New York Times, and reportedly had concerns about whether he was entirely forthcoming. Lying to the FBI is a felony. If the FBI investigation into Flynn’s conduct turns up wrongdoing, Sessions could be responsible for signing off on the prosecution.

Flynn, who resigned as national security adviser on Monday, denies intentionally mischaracterizing his conversations with the Russian ambassador. The incident, he said in his resignation letter, was due to the “fast pace of events.”

Investigators are also reportedly looking into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, whom Sessions has known since the 1970s and communicated with frequently during the campaign. Manafort said in an email that he has never been contacted by the FBI and that he has never had any connection to Putin or the Russian government. He gave a similar statement to The New York Times but added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

Former foreign policy adviser Carter Page and Republican operative Roger Stone are also under scrutiny, The New York Times reported.

The FBI applied for a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last year to monitor several members of the Trump team as part of its investigation, The Guardian reported in January. If the FBI wanted to request another FISA warrant to monitor those individuals, it would likely have to get approval from Sessions.”

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

PWS

02/15/17

What Are The Odds Of The US Immigration Courts’ Surviving The Next Four Years?

What Are The Odds Of The U.S. Immigration Courts’ Survival?

by Paul Wickham Schmidt

Despite the campaign promises to make things great for the American working person, the Trump Administration so far has benefitted comedians, lawyers, reporters, and not many others. But there is another group out there reaping the benefits — oddsmakers. For example, Trump himself is 11-10 on finishing his term, and Press Secretary Sean “Spicey” Spicer is 4-7 to still be in office come New Year’s Day 2018.

So, what are the odds that the U.S. Immigration Courts will survive the next four years. Not very good, I’m afraid.

Already pushed to the brink of disaster, the Immigration Courts are likely to be totally overwhelmed by the the Trump Administration’s mindless “enforcement to the max” program which will potentially unleash a tidal waive of ill-advised new enforcement actions, detained hearings, bond hearings, credible fear reviews, and demands to move Immigration Judges to newly established detention centers along the Southern Border where due process is likely to take a back seat to expediency.

While Trump’s Executive Order promised at least another 15,000 DHS immigration enforcement officers, there was no such commitment to provide comparable staffing increases to the U.S. Immigration Courts. Indeed, we don’t even know at this point whether the Immigration Courts will be exempted from the hiring freeze.

At the same time, DHS Assistant Chief Counsel are likely to be stripped of their authority to offer prosecutorial discretion (“PD”), stipulate to grants of relief in well-documented cases, close cases for USCIS processing, and waive appeals.

Moreover, according to recent articles from the Wall Street Journal posted over on LexisNexis, individual respondents are likely to reciprocate by demanding their rights to full hearings, declining offers of “voluntary departure” without hearing, and appealing, rather than waiving appeal of, most orders of removal. Additionally, the Mexican government could start “slow walking” requests for documentation necessary to effect orders of removal.

Waiting in the wings, as I have mentioned in previous posts, are efforts to eliminate the so-called “Chevron doctrine” giving deference to certain BIA decisions, and constitutional challenges that could bring down the entire Federal Administrative Judiciary “house of cards.”

The sensible way of heading off disaster would be to establish an independent Article I Court outside the Executive Branch and then staff it to do its job. Sadly, however, sensibility so far has played little role in the Trump Administration. Solving the problem (or not) is likely to fall to the Article III Courts.

So, right now, I’m giving the U.S. Immigration Courts about 2-3 odds of making it through 2020. That’s a little better chance than “Spicey,” but worse than Trump himself.

To read the WSJ articles on the “clogging the courts” strategy, take this link over to LexisNexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/archive/2017/02/13/will-strong-defensive-tactics-jam-immigration-jails-clog-immigration-courts-wsj.aspx?Redirected=true

PWS

02/14/17

BREAKING: Judge Brinkema (EDVA) Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Parts Of Trump Travel Ban — Finds “National Security” A Pretext For Unconstitutional Religious Discrimination! (Updated With A Copy Of Judge Brinkema’s 22-Page Order, Courtesy Of Politico)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-in-virginia-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-travel-ban/2017/02/13/a6164bfe-f255-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.99968d12d9cf

The Washington Post reports:

“The executive order, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema concluded, probably violates the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of religion.

Brinkema’s order applies only to Virginia residents and students, or employees of Virginia schools. A nationwide freeze has been in place for several days, having been issued in Washington state and upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In her opinion, Brinkema wrote that the Commonwealth of Virginia “has produced unrebutted evidence” that the order “was not motivated by rational national security concerns” but “religious prejudice” toward Muslims. She cited Trump’s statements before taking office, as well as an interview in which former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) said that the president wanted a “Muslim ban.”

“The ‘Muslim Ban’ was a centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered,” Brinkema wrote.

The case against the order in Virginia is being litigated by the state’s attorney general, Mark R. Herring (D). It was originally brought by lawyers for the Legal Aid Justice Center who were representing two Yemeni brothers turned away after landing at Dulles International Airport. The brothers have since been allowed into the country.

“I saw this unlawful, unconstitutional and unAmerican ban for what it is, and I’m glad the court did too,” Herring said Monday night. He said the decision “lays out in stunning detail the extent to which the Court finds this order to likely violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aziz, said the judge was “calling out the ban for what it really is, a Muslim ban.”

The decision is significant, he noted, because a preliminary injunction requires a higher burden of proof than the temporary restraining order issued in Washington.

. . . .

Brinkema rejected that [the Government’s] argument. “Maximum power does not mean absolute power,” she wrote. “Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.”

She also dismissed the idea that a halt on the ban would cause any harm. On the other hand, she said, the Commonwealth produced evidence that the ban is having a negative impact on students and faculty who can no longer leave the country for fear of losing their visas or who are no longer sure they can study in the state.

“Ironically, the only evidence in this record concerning national security indicates that the [order] may actually make the country less safe,” Brinkema wrote, a reference to a letter from a bipartisan group of national security professionals decrying the impact of the ban abroad.”

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

Here is Judge Brinkema’s 22-page order granting the preliminary injunction issued yesterday, Feb. 13, 2017 in Aziz v. Trump. (courtesy of Politico).

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-3a0e-d784-a5fb-3ebe82c60000

PWS

02/14/17

Wow! Even Professor John “Johnny Waterboard” Yoo Thinks That Four Years Of Trump’s “‘So-called’ Judgement” Could Be Torture!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-so-called-judgment-1486941557

Yoo, author of the notorious “Torture Memos” under the Bush II DOJ, and his colleague Professor Sai Prakash (who, as far as I know, had nothing whatsoever to do with said Torture Memo) write in today’s Washington Post:

“But if presidential attacks on the courts are nothing new, the history also underscores the smallness of Mr. Trump’s vision. Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR knew when to speak and when to keep silent. They invoked the great powers of the presidency to oppose the Supreme Court only when fundamental constitutional questions were at stake: the punishment of political dissent; secession and slavery; Congress’s power to regulate the economy. The occasion for Mr. Trump’s fury is a temporary restraining order of a temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries. Mr. Trump still has the opportunity to prevail on the merits. He hasn’t lost the case—at least not yet.

The Trump administration will often appear in court over the next four or eight years. It will lose plenty of cases, because, like its predecessors, it will push the legal envelope. If the president publicly vents every time he loses a ruling, his complaints will recede into background noise.

Questioning judicial decisions, and even the judiciary’s legitimacy, is entirely proper. But a wise president will reserve such attacks for extraordinary matters of state involving the highest constitutional principles. To do otherwise risks dissipating the executive’s energy, weakening the president’s agenda, and wasting his political capital. When criticizing the Supreme Court for upholding the Bank of the United States, declaring Dred Scott a slave, or striking down the New Deal, presidents were advancing constitutional agendas worthy of a fierce attack on the courts. Mr. Trump is upset about losing a minor procedural test of a temporary executive order. If he doesn’t learn to be more judicious, we’re in for a long four years.”

****************************
Kinda says it all. Yoo and Prakash are right. All Administrations lose cases on a daily basis in Federal Courts throughout the county — literally thousands of them over a full Administration.

I know, because one of my duties as the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS” was to to write or supervise the writing of “Adverse Decision Reports” (known in the DOJ litigation business as “Tombstones”) to the Solicitor General’s Office. It could have been almost a full time job (without some “help from my friends” in the office and the field).

And, of course, the INS was only one of many Government agencies litigating in the Federal Courts every day. We at the “Legacy INS” even had our own “dedicated litigation division,” known as the “Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”)” within the Civil Division. Also, no (or almost no) term of the Supreme Court goes by without the USG being on the “losing” side of one or more major decisions.

So, the Prez better get used to it. He could start by paying more attention to the career “Federal Court Pros” in the Solicitor General’s Office and OIL and less attention to the views of guys like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and even VP Mike Pence who are totally clueless as to how to conduct winning Federal litigation. Indeed, as Governor of Indiana, Pence got “totally creamed” in his disingenuous, mean-spirited, and illegal attempt to bar the resettlement of well-screened Syrian refugee families in Indiana. But, some folks never learn (and. perhaps, never will).

PWS

02/13/17

Trump WH Rocketing SNL Ratings To New Highs — Watch Melissa McCarthy Do It Again As Sean Spicer! See Clip (Courtesy Of Variety) Here!

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/saturday-night-live-melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-alec-baldwin-1201985397/

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

I wonder how AG Jeff Sessions reaction will compare with the late AG Janet Reno’s reaction to her “Dance Party?”

PWS

02/12/17

Know Your Rights Presentation with Professor Alberto Benitez and Chris Carr, JD ’17

https://vimeo.com/user9108723/review/203448069/ae155e4ae3

Professor Benitez and his students from the George Washington Law School Immigration Clinic have consistently made huge contributions to due process and the excellence of immigration practice at the Arlington Immigration Court. I highly recommend this educational video!!

PWS

02/11/17

Trump Mulls Travel Ban Options — Rewrite of Exec Order Possible — Might Forego Request For Supremes’ Intervention Now!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-considers-rewriting-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/10/ddcf5a6a-efb5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpban-408pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c2de193b26a6

From the Washington Post:

“President Trump said Friday that he is considering rewriting his executive order temporarily barring refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the country, indicating that the administration may try to quickly restore some aspects of the now-frozen travel ban or replace it with other measures.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he would probably wait until Monday or Tuesday to take any action, and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said several options — including taking the case to the Supreme Court — were still on the table.

Trump hinted that the ongoing legal wrangling might move too slowly for his taste, though he thought he would ultimately prevail in court.”

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

Many commentators have suggested that the Administration could have avoided most of the constitutional issues that have bothered the courts by simply making the order applicable solely to those abroad who have not been admitted to the U.S. as refugees or with visas.

The Solicitor General’s Office at the DOJ (even though there is no appointed “SG” for now, there are plenty of career “Supreme Court pros” on the staff) doesn’t like to “look bad” before the Supreme Court. Normally, the Solicitor General must approve and sign off on all Government filings before the Supreme Court. It’s possible that the SG’s Office thinks that the Administration’s case is unlikely to prevail in its current posture, and is therefore trying to persuade the Administration not to file for Supreme Court review right now.

PWS

02/10/17

Matt Zapotsky in WashPost: “7 key take-aways from the court’s ruling on Trump’s immigration order”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/09/7-key-takeaways-from-the-courts-ruling-on-trumps-immigration-order/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpban-takeaways-930pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.64ae82747f5

PWS

02/10/17

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Panel Unanimously Reject’s Administration’s Request For Stay Of Travel Ban — Read The Complete Decision Here!

Read-the-9th-Circuit-s-opinion-on-the-travel-ban

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

I think it will be hard for the Administration to prevail at this stage. I’d be surprised if either the full (“en banc”) 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court want to get involved at the TRO stage.

President Trump Tweets “See You In Court.” (Hasn’t that line been used before?) But, as indicated above, I’m not sure that the Supreme Court (particularly with only 8 Justices) will want to intervene at this point. The Supremes did take the Obama Immigration Executive Order case at a preliminary stage; but they were unable to resolve it on the merits, affirming the lower court’s injunction by an evenly divided Court. Not clear why the Court would be in a better position to resolve this one. But, we’ll find out shortly.

PWS

02/09/17

The Sessions Era Begins At The USDOJ

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/09/jeff-sessions-is-now-the-attorney-general-here-are-the-four-biggest-things-to-fear/

Greg Sargent writes in The Morning Plum in today’s Washington Post:

“Jeff Sessions has now been confirmed as attorney general, and this vaults him to a position in American life that is unique. Perhaps more than any other person, Sessions stands at the nexus of many of the potential plot lines that we should fear most about the Donald Trump presidency.

Here are the possibilities we need to worry about. President Trump’s refusal to divest from his business holdings creates the possibility of untold conflicts of interest and even full-blown corruption on an unprecedented scale. The hostility of Trump and Republicans to a full, independent probe into Russian meddling in the election may mean there will never be a full public accounting of what happened, which could make a repeat more likely.
Trump’s year of lies about voter fraud, and his campaign vows of explicit persecution of minorities, could signal further voter suppression efforts, weakened civil rights protections, and the use of state power against Muslims and undocumented immigrants in draconian or discriminatory ways. Trump’s well-documented authoritarian impulses could conceivably tip him into genuine authoritarian rule, in which, for instance, the power of the state is turned against critics or political opponents.

Sessions is now in a unique position to facilitate and enable — or, by contrast, to act as a legal check on — some or all of these possibilities, should they metastasize (or metastasize further) into serious threats to vulnerable minorities or, more broadly, to our democracy. Here are the things to fear:

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

You can read the full article at the link. Although noting Session’s involvement with immigration, Sargent overlooks what is likely to be AG Session’s biggest legacy, for better or, as many expect, for worse. That is his unilateral control over the United States Immigration Courts, perhaps America’s largest and most important Federal Court System, with 530,000+ pending cases, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) about to be pushed into the already clogged “pipeline” under President Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration enforcement. Unlike most administrative courts within the Executive Branch, the Immigration Court not only has authority to order what in many cases can be indefinite “civil detention” but also to impose permanent exile on individuals (and, as a de facto matter on their U.S. citizen families), including some who were legally admitted to the United States and have resided here many years with “green cards.” Even in the area of criminal law, few judges in any system possess comparable authority to permanently affect the lives of so many individuals, their families, and their communities.

PWS

02/09/17

Undocumented Residents Are Part Of The Fabric Of Our Nation’s Capital

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-trumps-capital-undocumented-immigrants-live-and-work-in-the-shadow-of-the-white-house/2017/02/07/ed837844-e8d3-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html

Theresa Vargas and Steve Hendrix write in today’s Washington Post:

“Monroy is now working toward a master’s degree in international education. She is also the director of education at the Family Place, a service organization that offers literacy classes for adult immigrants, many of whom have no more than a third-grade education. She credits DACA with giving her that freedom to thrive and help others.

“A lot of fear I had before was taken away,” she said.

She hopes Trump will continue to honor the policy, but said if he revokes it, she is less worried about herself than others. Every day she sees women who come from places where gangs have taken their homes and tried to recruit their children. Women who fear not just instability, but losing loved ones, if they are forced to leave the United States. It is why in recent weeks she has attended protests at the White House and in front of the Trump hotel, adding her slight frame to the swelling crowds.

“I’ve told my friends if I have to go down with a fight, it will be a glamorous fight,” she said.”

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

Read the full front-page story at the link.

PWS

02/09/17

Sessions Confirmed As AG On Party Line Vote Following Contentious Process — Sen. Warren (D-MA) Silenced By GOP!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/amid-deep-partisan-rancor-a-sharply-divided-senate-barrels-toward-sessions-vote/2017/02/08/d848d4fa-ee15-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.b888cc34bb55

“A sharply divided Senate confirmed President Trump’s nominee for attorney general Wednesday, capping an ugly partisan fight and revealing how deep the discord has grown between Republicans and Democrats at the dawn of Trump’s presidency.

The day after an unusually tense conflict on the Senate floor, the chamber voted 52 to 47 on Wednesday evening to clear Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whose record on civil and voting rights as a federal prosecutor and state attorney general has long been criticized. Sessions won confirmation almost exclusively along party lines. Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) was the only Democrat who supported him, and no Republican voted against him. Sessions voted present.

In remarks after his confirmation, Sessions mentioned the “heated debate” surrounding him and said he hoped “the intensity of the last few weeks” would give way to better relations in the Senate.”

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

PWS

02/08/17

WashPost: The Fix: Trump Threatens Third Branch!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/08/president-trump-is-not-so-subtly-threatening-the-american-court-system/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumphearing-1230pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.889ea4d1df98

Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post:

“In a speech to law enforcement officials, Feb. 8, President Trump read federal law giving broad him broad authority to set immigration restrictions, adding, “a bad high school student would understand this.” (The Washington Post)

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is now weighing what to do with President Trump’s travel ban. And Trump did his best Wednesday to put his finger on the scales of justice.

Continuing a highly unusual days-long effort by a president, Trump issued a stark warning to the three-judge panel and, really, the entire court system: Run afoul of me, and you may just pay a price.

In a speech in front of law enforcement in Washington, Trump suggested to the three-judge panel that they would marginalize themselves politically if they decide the wrong way. Trump has said similar things about the judge who previously halted his travel ban — albeit after the decision had come down.

The comments were oblique, but Trump’s point was crystal clear.

“If these judges wanted to help the court in terms of respect for the court, they’d do what they should be doing,” Trump said, in a comment thick with subtext. “It’s so sad.”

He added: “I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased. But courts seem to be so political, and it would be so great for our justice system if they would read [the law] and do what’s right.”

If that isn’t a threat to marshal support against the American court system and fight it politically, I’m not sure what is. Trump is basically saying: That’s a nice reputation you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

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

So, if this is the contemptuous and disrespectful way Trump treats the Article III Courts, what does that say about the chances for fairness and due process in the U.S. Immigration Court System, where all the U.S. Immigration Judges and the Appellate Immigration Judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals work directly for Trump’s friend and enthusiastic supporter, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a well-established “immigration hard liner” who is reputed to be the “inspiration” behind Trump’s immigration enforcement program.

How long will an Immigration Judge who rules in favor of an individual who is one of Trump’s “removal priorities” or an Appellate Immigration Judge who speaks out in favor of due process in the face of Trump’s “move ’em all out” Executive Orders remain on the bench. Not long, I suspect. Is Attorney General Jeff Sessions really going to stand up for and protect a conscientious Immigration Judge who in good faith attempts to follow the law even when it conflicts with Trump’s edicts? Not likely.

The only question probably will be whether Article III Judges will stand up to Trump’s bullying and excesses and force Constitutional due process back into the system after Trump and Sessions drain it out. So far, the Article III Judiciary seems to be almost as unfazed by Trump’s bulling and threats as, say, the cast of SNL. But, it’s early in the game. And even Article III Judges eventually might find that they have to pick their fights. Will the due process rights of foreign nationals be one of them? Only time will tell. Stay tuned.

PWS

02/08/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: