"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BILL BARR – Unqualified For Office – Unfit To Act In A Quasi-Judicial Capacity
There have been many articles pointing out that Bill Barr unethically has acted as Trump’s defense counsel rather than fulfilled his oath to uphold the Constitution and be the Attorney General of all of the American people. There have also been some absurdist “apologias” for Barr some written by once-respected lawyers who should know better, and others written by the normal Trump hacks.
Here are my choices for four of the best articles explaining why Barr should not be the Attorney General. It goes without saying that he shouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be running the Immigration Court system. His intervention into individual cases in a quasi-judicial capacity is a clear violation of judicial ethics requiring avoidance of even the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. There is no “appearance” here. Barr has a clear conflict in any matter dealing with immigration.
Attorney General William Barr. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
House Democrats are going to face a difficult decision about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Balanced against the president’s impressive array of misconduct is the fact that several more criminal investigations that may add to the indictment are already underway, and that impeaching the president might jeopardize the reelection of red-state Democratic members. But in the meantime, Attorney General William Barr presents them with a much easier decision. Barr has so thoroughly betrayed the values of his office that voting to impeach and remove him is almost obvious.
On March 24, Barr released a short letter summarizing the main findings of the Mueller investigation, as he saw them. News accounts treated Barr’s interpretation as definitive, and the media — even outlets that had spent two years uncovering a wide swath of suspicious and compromising links between the Trump campaign and Russia — dutifully engaged in self-flagellation for having had the temerity to raise questions about the whole affair.
Barr had done very little to that point to earn such a broad benefit of the doubt. In the same role in 1992, he had supported mass pardons of senior officials that enabled a cover-up of the Iran–Contra scandal. Less famously, in 1989 he issued a redacted version of a highly controversial administration legal opinion that, as Ryan Goodman explained, “omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion” for “no justifiable reason.”
And while many members of the old Republican political Establishment had recoiled against Trump’s contempt for the rule of law, Barr has shown no signs of having joined them. He met with Trump to discuss serving as his defense lawyer, publicly attacked the Mueller investigation (which risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president”), called for more investigations of Hillary Clinton, and circulated a lengthy memo strongly defending Trump against obstruction charges.
The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability; Barr gave congressional testimony hyping up Trump’s charges of “spying,” even prejudging the outcome of an investigation (“I think there was a failure among a group of leaders [at the FBI] at the upper echelon”); evaded questions as to whether he had shared the Mueller report with the White House; and, it turns out, he’s “had numerous conversations with White House lawyers which aided the president’s legal team,” the New York Times reports. Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication.
It is not much of a mystery to determine which officials have offered their full loyalty to the president. Trump has reportedly “praised Barr privately for his handling of the report and compared him favorably to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions” —whose sole offense in Trump’s eyes was following Department of Justice ethical protocol. Trump urged his Twitter followers to tune in to Barr’s conference, promotional treatment he normally reserves for his Fox News sycophants.
The press conference was the final disqualifying performance. Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.
Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.
Where Mueller intended to leave the job of judging Trump’s obstructive conduct to Congress, Barr interposed his own judgment. Barr offered this incredible statement for why Trump’s behavior was excusable: “[T]here is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said. “Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” and credited him further with taking “no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.”
Sincere? How can Barr use that word to describe the mentality of a man whose own staffers routinely describe him in the media as a pathological liar? Trump repeatedly lied about Russia’s involvement in the campaign, and his own dealings with Russia. And he also, contra Barr, repeatedly denied the special counsel access to witnesses by dangling pardons to persuade them to withhold cooperation.
It is true that many of Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice failed. As Mueller wrote, the president’s “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
This is a rather different gloss on the facts than the happy story Barr offered the press. What’s more, it is a pressing argument for Barr’s own removal. Next to the president himself, the attorney general is the most crucial actor in the safeguarding of the rule of law. The Justice Department is an awesome force that holds the power to enable the ruling party to commit crimes with impunity, or to intimidate and smear the opposing party with the taint of criminality.
There is no other department in government in which mere norms, not laws, are all that stand between democracy as we know it and a banana republic. Barr has revealed his complete unfitness for this awesome task. Nearly two more years of this Trumpian henchman wielding power over federal law enforcement is more weight than the rickety Constitution can bear.
In the years after Watergate, Justice Department officials — from both parties — worked hard to banish partisan cronyism from the department. Their goal was to make it the least political, most independent part of the executive branch.
“Our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose,” Edward Levi, Gerald Ford’s attorney general, said at the time. Griffin Bell, later appointed to the same job by Jimmy Carter, described the department as “a neutral zone in the government, because the law has to be neutral.”
Attorney General William Barr clearly rejects this principle. He’s repeatedly put a higher priority on protecting his boss, President Trump, than on upholding the law in a neutral way. He did so in his letter last month summarizing Robert Mueller’s investigation and then again in a bizarre prebuttal news conference yesterday. As The Times editorial board wrote, Barr yesterday “behaved more like the president’s defense attorney than the nation’s top law-enforcement officer.”
Throughout his tenure, Barr has downplayed or ignored the voluminous evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing — his lies to the American people, his willingness to work with a hostile foreign country during a presidenial campaign, his tolerance of extensive criminal behavior among his staff and his repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation. Barr even claimed that Trump “fully cooperated” with that investigation, which Vox’s Ezra Klein notes is “an outright lie.”
Since he took office, Trump has made clear that he wants an attorney general who acts as first an enforcer of raw power and only second as an enforcer of federal law. In Barr, Trump has found his man. Together, they have cast aside more than four decades worth of Justice Department ideals and instead adopted the approach of Richard Nixon.
President Donald Trump has long wished for an attorney general who would act as his own private lawyer, protecting him from any potential legal damage. He finally found his man in William Barr.
Barr could have released special counsel Robert Mueller’s report from the beginning. Instead, the attorney general chose to twice present his own interpretation of the special counsel’s findings on foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. election ― before allowing members of the public to see the report and decide for themselves whether Trump and his associates did anything improper.
The first time the public received a glimpse of what was in the Mueller report was on March 24, when Barr sent a four-page letter to congressional leaders summarizing his conclusions from the report the special counsel team had submitted to Barr two days earlier.
The second time the public heard about the report’s content was in a Thursday morning press conference when Barr went out of his way to echo Trump talking points, attacking the media and the president’s “political opponents.”
To the Justice Department’s credit, the redactions in the Mueller report were relatively light ― allowing the public to see a substantial amount of the content.
But still, in his public comments, Barr made sure to paint as positive a picture of Trump before the report became widely available.
Here’s how the attorney general misled the public:
He left out the Trump campaign’s expectation of benefiting from hacked material.
In his letter to Congress on March 24, Barr wrote:
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ”[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election inference activities.”
While it’s true that the Mueller report did reach that conclusion, that quote is incomplete. Barr left out the first part, which was less complimentary to the Trump campaign.
Below is the full quote from the Mueller report, with the part Barr omitted in bold:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
He said it was up to him to make a decision on obstruction of justice.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Attorney General William Barr went to bat for Trump in a Thursday morning press conference.
In his March 24 letter, Barr said Mueller’s team did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed justice in the course of the investigation. Therefore, Barr claimed, it was now up to him to make that determination.
“The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” he wrote.
Barr said he concluded that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
But Barr never had to make that legal conclusion, as Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, pointed out. And Mueller never asked Barr to so.
Indeed, the report said the special counsel’s team couldn’t come to such a conclusion:
[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The report also said that ultimately, the obstruction call wasn’t for Mueller to make. The special counsel decided not to make a decision on whether to prosecute Trump because the Justice Department’s position, according to an Office of Legal Counsel memo, is that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
“Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations … this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction,” the report states.
Furthermore, it seems clear that Mueller and his team expected that ultimately, Congress would make the decision on obstruction of justice.
NBC News reported earlier that some in Mueller’s office had said “their intent was to leave the legal question open for Congress and the public to examine the evidence.”
“[W]e concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report says.
In other words, Congress can impeach the president if it wants to do so.
He gave an incomplete picture of Trump’s actions that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct,” Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.
The report doesn’t let Trump off the hook quite so easily. It says Trump tried to obstruct justice ― but he didn’t succeed because his staff refused to follow his orders.
“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” the report reads.
The report detailed 10 acts by Trump that could amount to obstruction of justice.
He said Mueller found “no collusion.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been called to testify before Congress about his report.
One of Trump’s favorite phrases is that there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 elections. He has tweeted it 84 times.
Barr used the phrase four times in his 18-minute remarks in Thursday’s press conference:
“Put another way, the special counsel found no ‘collusion’ by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.”
“But again, the special counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking.”
“After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel’s investigation.”
“At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion.”
But the Mueller report never actually said the investigation found no collusion. In fact, the report explains specifically why it doesn’t use the term “collusion.” The word only appears in the report as part of this explanation or in quoting someone else.
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report avoided using the term “collusion,” and explains why here.
Therefore, Barr repeatedly saying Mueller found “no collusion” was simply the attorney general adopting a Trump talking point.
He said Trump fully cooperated with the investigation.
Barr was extremely sympathetic to Trump in Thursday’s press conference. He tried to paint a picture of a president under extreme ― and unfair ― pressure, telling reporters, “As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.”
He said Trump was “frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” so it’s not surprising if he may have lashed out a bit. And, he added, Trump deserved credit for “fully cooperat[ing]” with the special counsel at all:
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.
Trump, however, didn’t fully cooperate. He refused repeated requests to give an interview to Mueller and his team. The report said the special counsel’s team considered issuing a subpoena for Trump to testify but ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it:
MUELLER REPORT
The Mueller report says Trump refused to be interviewed by the special counsel and his team.
******************************************
Finally, this editorial form the SF Chronicle really “hammers home” Barr’s patent unfitness to continue serving.
Editorial: Attorney General Barr’s misplaced loyalties
Chronicle Editorial Board
Updated
Photo: Tom Brenner / New York Times
Attorney General William Barr has been acting as if he is Presisdent Trump’s personal attorney.
President Trump has never made any secret of his desire to have an attorney general whose first loyalty was to him. Regrettably for the nation and the honest administration of justice, Trump unquestionably now has one in William Barr.
The attorney general has lost all credibility with his disgraceful handling of the rollout of the Mueller report into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Barr left the American people for more than a month with a seriously skewed characterization of the “principal conclusions” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings from the two-year investigation.
His four-page summary of those conclusions amounted to “nothing much to see here, folks.” While he was correct that the Mueller team could not make a case that anyone in Trump’s campaign broke the law by conspiring with Russians, the Barr summary was downright deceptive in its portrayal of the special counsel’s findings on possible obstruction of justice by the president.
Barr’s summary suggested that “difficult questions of law and fact” left it difficult for Mueller to determine whether Trump had obstructed the probe. Barr and his deputy took it upon themselves to conclude that “the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient” to establish obstruction.
Americans who have now read the Mueller’s team’s own words in the 448-page report discovered that Barr’s account was highly misleading. In fact, Mueller’s hesitation was not based on an inability to decide; it was guided in part by a Department of Justice policy that a sitting president could not be indicted. Given that, Mueller suggested it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime when the president could not have a chance to defend himself in a “speedy and public trial” with the constitutional protections.
Barr also suggested that Trump could not have obstructed justice into an investigation of a crime he did not commit.
Mueller’s report clearly stated otherwise.
“The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” it stated. Mueller’s investigation detailed “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Rather than punting the obstruction decision to Barr, Mueller very clearly noted that a decision on what to do with the substantial evidence of wrongdoing he collected should be made by Congress, which has the power of impeachment.
Barr never bothered to correct Trump’s exhortation of “complete and total exoneration.” Barr might as well have been on a Trump spokesman, rather than the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, at a bizarre Thursday news conference (before the report’s release) in which he offered a sympathetic explanation for Trump’s repeated efforts to stymie the investigation. Barr chalked it up to Trump’s anger and frustration.
Justice has been frustrated. Americans are justifiably angry. Barr has proved himself unfit for the high office he holds.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Undoubtedly, Trump is unfit for office as many of us have been saying for some time now. The Mueller report confirmed what most thinking people already knew: the guy is dishonest, immoral, pathological, and a not very bright “con man.” (He’s also a racist and a White Nationalist would be authoritarian, although those admittedly were not points of emphasis in the Mueller report which focused on other aspects of his totally disgraceful conduct.)
But, I’ll concede that Trump’s removal is unlikely to happen except at the ballot box. Even that is uncertain with about 40% of American voters apparently wedded to a “beggar thy neighbor, who cares about the majority, country be damned” worldview. Trump is already focused on a “race-baiting” strategy of leveraging the most problematic aspects of our electoral college system while treating the interests of majority of Americans with mockery and disdain.
It remains to be seen whether any Democratic candidate can unite the diverse majority of Americans for at least long enough to save our country by removing Trump and, hopefully, his GOP enablers along with him. It also remains to be seen whether any country where 40% of the voters are so out of touch with reality and the common interests of the rest of us can actually be governed, once majority rule is restored.
But, Barr is a different matter. He’s not elected, he’s not President, and we don’t have to enable his continued unethical misuse of authority at the DOJ, at least not in the the all important area of the U.S. Immigraton Court.
If Congress won’t do the job by creating an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, it’s time for the Article III courts to invalidate precedents produced by Barr’s and Sessions’s unethical participation in individual quasi-judicial decision-making and to start invalidating removal orders entered by “courts” controlled by political enforcement officials, in clear contradiction to the Due Process requirement that individuals facing the life or death authority of the Federal Government are entitled to have fair and impartial decision makers and reasoned decisions. That can’t happen in a system controlled and directed by biased political “enforcement only” officials like Barr (and Sessions before him). Barr has made it crystal clear that he always will put the selfish interests of Trump above truthfulness, the law, due process, fundamental fairness, and the common good.
Letting this farce of a “judicial system” continue unfairly endangering individual lives and deferring to officials who are neither subject matter experts nor fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision makers is unconstitutional. By letting it continue, life-tenured Federal Judges both tarnish their reputations and fail to fulfill their oaths of office.
As a young attorney in the Department of Justice during the Watergate Era, I, along with many others, were indelibly impressed and inspired when then Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his Deputy William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s illegal order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor (a/k/a/ “The Saturday Night Massacre”). Obviously, Barr has dragged the Department and its reputation down to new depths — back to the days of Nixon and disgraced (and convicted) Attorney General “John the Con” Mitchell, who actually planned criminal conspiracies in his fifth floor office at the DOJ.
Obviously, there are systemic problems that have allowed unqualified individuals like Barr and Sessions to serve in and co-opt the system of justice, and denigrate the Department of Justice. (I spoke to some recently retired DOJ officials who characterized the morale among career professionals at the DOJ as “below the floor”). Some of those can be traced to the lack of backbone and integrity in the “Trump GOP” which controls the Senate and refuses to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism, meaningful oversight, and independent decision making in Trump appointees. That’s what a “kakistocracy” is. It’s up to the rest of us to do what is necessary under the law to replace the kakistocracy with a functioning democracy.
A federal court dealt a major blow to the Guantanamo Bay military commissions Tuesday, throwing out more than three years of proceedings in the case against the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that former military judge Vance Spath “created a disqualifying appearance of partiality” by pursuing a position as an immigration judge while also overseeing the case.
The judges also voided an order issued by Spath that sought to require two defense attorneys for the defendant, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to return to the case against their will.
The ruling is the latest blemish for the troubled commissions set up in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to try prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Of a once-vast detainee population there, only 40 inmates remain. Nearly two decades after the attacks, the start of the trial of 9/11 suspects remains far off amid seemingly endless legal wrangling and procedural delays.
The decision also suggests that federal courts may no longer be as deferential to the war courts and to the larger Guantanamo system as they have been in the past, as commission proceedings drag on for years and some two dozen other detainees languish without the suggestion of a trial.
Nashiri, a Saudi national in his 50s, faces a possible death penalty for his alleged orchestration of a string of plots to bomb Western vessels, including the Cole attack, which killed 17 Americans. After his capture, Nashiri was subject to extensive torture in CIA custody.
“Many years ago, when Abd al-Rahim first heard he was being handed over to the Americans, he was actually happy because he thought the United States was a country of laws and rights and that he’d at least be treated fairly,” said Navy Lt. Alaric Piette, a member of Nashiri’s defense team. “Finally, after 16 years, with this ruling, that has actually happened. Which is to say that this will mean a lot to him.”
Spath, who recently retired as an Air Force colonel, suspended Nashiri’s case in early 2018 over a dispute with defense lawyers who resigned after finding a microphone in a room used for attorney-client discussions. The judge’s order that the attorneys remain on the case kicked off a complex controversy involving several legal bodies and resulted in the house arrest of a brigadier general tasked with overseeing commission defense teams.
A year into his involvement in the case, Spath meanwhile quietly applied to the Justice Department for a position as an immigration judge. Such judges are appointed by the attorney general.
The D.C. Circuit judges, in a stinging rebuke, responded this week by throwing out rulings in the case from the commission and at least some from its appeals body, beginning at the moment when Spath initiated his job application in November 2015.
“Although a principle so basic to our system of laws should go without saying, we nonetheless feel compelled to restate it plainly here: criminal justice is a shared responsibility,” Judge David Tatel wrote in the panel’s ruling. “Yet in this case, save for Al-Nashiri’s defense counsel, all elements of the military commission system — from the prosecution team to the Justice Department to the CMCR [U.S. Court of Military Commission Review] to the judge himself — failed to live up to that responsibility.”
“This much is clear: whenever and however military judges are assigned, rehired, and reviewed, they must always maintain the appearance of impartiality,” Tatel wrote.
The CMCR is the Guantanamo appeals body. Tatel was joined on the panel by Judges Judith Rogers and Thomas Griffith.
Michael Paradis, an attorney who represented Nashiri in the D.C. Circuit case, said the opinion revealed the judges’ frustration “that the system is cavalier about such basic roles and so broken as a consequence. The whole thing has become so shambolic.”
In a striking insight into the court’s thinking, the decision appeared to suggest that the judges considered what Tatel described as a “powerful case for dissolving the current military commission entirely” — that is, they examined the possibility of voiding the entire Nashiri case to date. Such a move would strike an even more massive blow to the military justice architecture of the post-9/11 era.
The government could appeal the ruling. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment on pending litigation.
Spath’s successor on the military court also left to become an immigration judge.
Devlin Barrett, Maria Sacchetti and Nick Miroff contributed to this report.
**************************************
Legislative reform establishing an independent Article I Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.”
Instead, while Congress diddles, the misdirected and mismanaged U.S. Immigration Courts under the DOJ continue full steam toward operational and legal disaster. Without a timely Congressional remedy, that could eventually leave the entire removal system in the hands of the Article IIIs.
Notably, the “precipitating event” here was the Military Judge applying to the DOJ to become an Immigration Judge while handling a case in which the DOJ had an interest.
How about Attorneys General who have taken “point position” on the Administration’s harsh and often illegal immigration enforcement initiatives intervening in individual cases (sometimes over the objection of both parties) to change results to give DHS Enforcement, a party, a victory? Or, that all Immigration Judges are selected, evaluated, assigned, and directed by the Attorney General, a non-quasi-judicial official who is the “chief enforcer” and “chief prosecutor?”
Time for the U.S. Immigration Courts to be required to comply with Due Process!
Ex-ICE head: Trump had ‘single dumbest idea I’ve ever heard’
New Day
Former Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement John Sandweg says President Trump’s suggestion to eliminate immigration judges is “the single dumbest idea I’ve ever heard” in terms of dealing with border crossings.
Go to the link and watch the short video interview with John.
I totally agree that the answer here is to provide both the Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges necessary to make the system work. However, to really address the problem, we also need to work on the causes of forced migration and embrace wholeheartedly the international mechanisms available through the UNHCR and the U.N. Convention to work on refugee issues cooperatively with other signatory counties.
Nevertheless, I do take issue with John’s implicit assumption that the current 20-25% grant rate for Northern Triangle countries represents reality. This Administration in particular, but also previous Administrations, worked hard to unfairly skew the asylum system against asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle.
This includes:
Limiting opportunities for representation by counsel (counsel increases success rates by at least 4X);
Using detention in a coercive and punitive way to discourage claims and punish those who pursue them;
Skewing the law to make gender-based and gang-based claims, which could fairly easily be fitted into the conventional asylum framework, unnecessarily complicated and hard to establish;
Hiring mostly former prosecutors as Immigration Judges and then sending them a “deny and remove” message through the Attorney General, who unethically and in violation of any common sense concept of Due Process controls the Immigration Courts;
Failing to provide proper training and guidance to Immigration Judges through precedent decisions on how asylum claims can and should be granted;
Tolerating Immigration Judges who have shown bias toward asylum seekers and almost never grant asylum;
Intentionally making asylum law overly legalistic and focused on finding reasons to deny and remove, rather than protect.
One need look no further than two of my recent posts about judges who never grant asylum to see how sick, biased, and unfair the Immigration Court system has become to asylum seekers.
And make no mistake — the racist scofflaws who have assumed control of immigration policy under Trump intend to eradicate asylum, the rule of law, and our Constitution. Don’t think that just because you might happen to be a U.S. citizen or even a Trump supporter you will be immune from the destruction of the foundations of our republic and your individual rights. Some day, your turn will also come. Who will defend and speak up for those who have watched the rights and the lives of the vulnerable among us be trampled?
For much of my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court the asylum grant rate hovered around 70% with few DHS appeals. As someone who worked on the Refugee Act of 1980 and has been involved in the administration and application of U.S. asylum laws for decades, from all sides, that high grant rate was completely warranted. Those finding reasons to deny at rates approaching 100% are not fairly, impartially, and correctly applying asylum law in accordance with Due Process and the actual legal standards. For too long we have tolerated gross abuses of asylum seekers — it has been taken to a new level under this Administration.
It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, it’s unethical, and it must stop!
We examine the record of one of the toughest immigration judges in the country, including the surprising way her decisions benefited transgender asylum-seekers. Then we follow one transgender woman who flees El Salvador for the United States to try to claim asylum.
Our final story takes us to Turkey, and focuses on a small but growing group of refugees seeking a new life: young Afghan women fleeing abuse, forced marriage and persecution in their homeland. Reporter Fariba Nawa tells the story of Hoor, who made the dangerous journey into Turkey alone, only to be assaulted by an Afghan man in Istanbul. Against all odds, Hoor sought justice for her abuser and ultimately prevailed.
Credits
Our first story about an immigration judge who ruled on hundreds of cases involving transgender asylum seekers was reported and produced by Patrick Michels and edited by Brett Myers.
Our second story about a transgender woman who fled El Salvador was reported by Alice Driver. It was produced by Casey Minor with help from Emily Harris and Amy Isackson and was edited by Brett Myers.
Our story about Afghan female migrants was reported and produced by Fariba Nawa and edited by Taki Telonidis.
Our production manager is Najib Aminy. Original score and sound design by Jim Briggs and Fernando Arruda, who had help from Kaitlin Benz and Katherine Rae Mondo.
The lack of sensitivity training and proper application of the legal standards for asylum that was allowed to go on for many years in this Immigration Courtroom is appalling;
The BIA, whose job is supposed be insuring that individuals’ Due Process rights are respected and asylum law is applied in a fair and impartial manner, failed to do its job;
The qualification of individuals for asylum based on gender classifications has been well established since Matter of Tobago-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 1990) was published (at the direction of then-Attorney General Janet Reno) in 1994;
LGBTQ cases were well-documented, credible, and routinely granted by the U.S Immigration Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court during my tenure there;
I don’t remember ever denying a transgender case — most were either stipulated or agreed upon by the DHS Office of Chief Counsel — yet EOIR failed to institutionalize those “best practices” that would have promoted justice, consistency, and efficiency;
Immigration Judges are bound to follow not only BIA precedents, but also the precedents by the U.S. Circuit Courts in the jurisdiction where they sit — that obviously was not happening here — a clear violation of both law and ethics;
You can see the difference when an Immigration Judge does listen, properly applies the law in the generous manner dictated by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, and gives the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” as set forth in the U.N. Handbook on the Refugee Convention;
The difference in people’s lives and the benefits to the U.S. when judges properly apply asylum law to protect individuals, as intended, is obvious;
Those without lawyers and those held in long-term detention are being treated unfairly and not in accordance with Due Process;
This system needs reform so that it operates independently, impartially, and under the legal standards established by law and by Article III Circuit Courts;
Immigration Judges who are biased against asylum seekers must be uniformly reversed and “outed” by a real Appellate Tribunal, not the current “go along to get along” version of the BIA;
Judges who unwilling to threat asylum applicants and other foreign nationals fairly should not be reappointed to the bench in a competitive, merit-based process;
Trump’s recent “we don’t need no stinkin’ judges for asylum cases” rhetoric is as absurd as it is ignorant, unconstitutional, and damaging to both our precious justice system and vulnerable human beings who need and are legally entitled to our protection.
Many thanks to Lawrence University Scarff Professor of Government Jason Brozek for bringing this highly relevant podcast to my attention.
I am at Lawrence University (my alma mater) in Appleton, WI for two weeks as the Scarff Family Distinguished Visiting Professor. Jason and I currently are teaching a “mini-seminar” in Kasinga/FGM/Gender-Based Asylum in the Government Department at Lawrence. This podcast is directly relevant and “breathes life” into the issues we have been discussing with the wonderfully talented and engaged students in our class.
McALLEN, Texas — Federal immigration officials dropped the first group of several dozen asylum seekers — all Central American parents with children — at the downtown bus station early in the day.
They dropped more throughout the day, all of them Spanish speakers in need of food, medicine and guidance from volunteers.
Jose Manuel Velasquez, 24, cradled his squirming 3-year-old-daughter, Sofia, as volunteer Susan Law advised him how to reach Oklahoma City, where he hoped to join his cousin. He was one of thousands of asylum seekers trying to leave the border region this week to reach friends, family and immigration court hearings in other parts of the country.
Ahead of President Trump’s Friday visit to California,volunteers along the border helped hundreds of asylum seekers who had been released from U.S. custody. Cities are pitching in, but helping the migrants has mainly fallen to volunteers whose resources were already at a breaking point from responding to a slew of new immigration policies.
On Thursday in McAllen, the U.S. released 700 migrants to crowded nonprofit shelters and dropped others at the bus station. Some arrived at the station with confirmation numbers to claim tickets paid for by relatives. Many arrived confused.
Law, a volunteer with the group Angry Tias and Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley, said the constant arrivals this week made volunteers’ work “more overwhelming.”
The 73-year-old, a retired human resources director for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, sat with one parent after another Thursday. She explained each step of their bus trip, highlighting connections on a stack of maps.
She reviewed their paperwork, reminded them to keep their addresses updated and attend immigration court, and shared lists of free legal services at their destinations.
Many eastbound buses arriving in McAllen on Thursday were already packed with those released in El Paso and San Antonio. The wait time for migrants released to shelters to make it onto a bus has stretched to two days, according to Eli Fernandez, a volunteer at a nonprofit shelter.
Migrant advocates have suggested that recent mass releases at the border were intended to create chaos and give Trump something to point to when he argues that there is a national emergency.
Border Patrol officials have said their resources were strained by people crossing into the U.S. and asking for asylum. The officials have asked for millions more in funding to run temporary holding areas in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.
A Federal Emergency Management Agency team arrived in the valley this week, meant to support Border Patrol operations and nongovernmental groups, a FEMA spokeswoman said. But many volunteers said they hadn’t been contacted by the agency.
Trump policies blocking asylum seekers led volunteers to found Angry Tias and Abuelas about a year ago, after U.S. officials blocked asylum seekers at a border bridge south of McAllen. They brought food and supplies to the bridge and kept helping migrant families once Border Patrol started separating them. As immigrant parents were released, the volunteers shifted to the bus station to assist Catholic Charities, which runs a nearby shelter.
Most volunteers in Angry Tias and Abuelas are local, some are winter Texans, and others out-of-state visitors.
Luis Guerrero, a retired firefighter, remembers a 4-year-old Salvadoran girl explaining why she and her parents had to flee to the U.S.: Armed men had broken into their house and demanded money. “If you stay here,” Guerrero told the couple, “make sure your daughter gets therapy.”
Many of the migrants are from poor, rural areas and need the most basic help, volunteers said.
A young Honduran mother paid attention Thursday as Law traced the route she would follow to join her sister, a legal resident who migrated years ago and settled in Memphis, Tenn. Olga Lara had brought her 3-year-old, Alva, but left her 13-year-old daughter, Lilia, in Honduras with Lara’s mother.
Lara, 29, said she hoped to learn to read, as her sister had, in the U.S. She doesn’t know how to spell her name. She has never attended school, she said, because her family couldn’t afford it.
Law ensured the woman was traveling with another migrant who could read, write and look out for her. Law also warned Lara and other female migrants about the risk of trafficking, advising them to stay in main bus terminals and avoid anyone who might try to persuade them to leave.
Lara tucked her ticket into her bra and her paperwork into a bag next to Alva’s Elmo doll. She was wearing a donated puffy jacket and sneakers that were stripped of shoelaces while she was in Border Patrol detention. Law ran to grab her some of the laces she keeps stashed at the bus station. Lara threaded them through her shoes and thanked the volunteer.
On Thursday, good Samaritans from local churches dropped by with books, toys and hot breakfast tacos for the migrants. But there were not enough tacos to go around. A van from the nearby shelter was delayed when it ran out of gas. A few families boarded buses without eating.
Volunteer Roland Garcia, a former U.S. Marine, loaned his cellphone to a single Salvadoran mother of three, a domestic violence victim, so she could contact family in Houston and book her bus ticket.
“If we could just get more volunteers to help these people,” he said. “To them, everything is new. Some of them don’t even know how to work the Coke machine.”
Garcia, 60, who used to be a truck driver, started volunteering after he ducked into the bus station a few months ago to wait during a delivery and saw the crowds. He had been diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and felt the need to do something meaningful. He’s already recruited other volunteers.
His friend Rafael Mendoza said volunteers counter misinformation some asylum-seeking families receive from staff in Border Patrol facilities: “You’re wasting your time, you’re going to lose your case, you’re not welcome here.”
“Our own agents are telling them that,” said Mendoza, 59. “It’s very discouraging.”
The Catholic Charities shelter was packed Thursday, even after opening a second site when the Border Patrol started releasing large groups of families two weeks ago. The shelter’s halls were full of parents with small children who had not bathed in days while being held in chilly Border Patrol cells, where they said they caught colds.
Honduran Eulogio Erazo Varela said his 3-year-old daughter developed a fever while they were held for almost a week, first in a Border Patrol cell — what migrants call a hielera, or icebox — then behind a chain-link fence in a converted warehouse.
He was relieved to meet volunteers at the bus station Thursday. He said they treated him kindly as he prepared to catch a bus to Memphis — unlike Border Patrol agents, he said, who didn’t provide much treatment or help.
Many of the volunteers, including Law, had caught the migrants’ colds. But they were determined to keep helping. Law has driven a few migrants whose families could afford tickets to the airport, and hoped to recruit more volunteer escorts to help them navigate air travel in coming weeks.
Law recalled a migrant mother she met Wednesday, confused by her bus itinerary until the volunteer walked her through it in Spanish. Afterward, the woman said she would have been lost without Law’s help.
Ironically, government by the worst among us (“kakistocracy”) is bringing out the best in many others. Along with the efforts of the “New Due Process Army,” it’s certainly reason to hope for a better future for America and for mankind!
TRUMP’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IS THE REAL “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS” — AND, A GENUINE HUMAN TRAGEDY — The Legal Tools To Address The Crisis In The Northern Triangle Causing A Refugee Flow Exist; This Administration Stubbornly Refuses To Use Them!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
United States Immigration Judges (Retired)
In short, families are coming to ports of entry and crossing the border to turn themselves in to be screened for credible fear and apply for asylum under our existing laws. That’s not a “border crisis;” it’s a humanitarian tragedy. It won’t be solved by more law enforcement or harsher measures; we’re actually quite fortunate that folks still believe in the system enough to voluntarily subject themselves to it.
Most don’t present any particular “danger” to the U.S. They are just trying to apply for legal protection under our laws. That’s something that has been denied them abroad because we don’t have a refugee program for the Northern Triangle. This Administration actually eliminated the already inadequate one we had under Obama.
Certainly, we have enough intelligence to know that these flows were coming. They aren’t secret. There was plenty of time to plan.
What could and should have been done is to increase the number of Asylum Officers and POE Inspectors by hiring retired Asylum Officers, Inspectors, adjudicators, and temps from the NGO sector who worked in the refugee field, but no longer have anything to do overseas since this Administration has basically dismantled the overseas refugee program.
A more competent DOJ could also have developed a corps of retired Immigration Judges (and perhaps other types of retired judges who could do bond setting and other functions common to many judicial systems) who already “know the ropes” and could have volunteered to go to the border and other places with overloads.
Also, working closely with and coordinating with the NGOs and the pro bono bar would have helped the credible fear process to go faster, be fairer, the Immigration Courts to function more fairly and efficiently, and would have screened out some of the “non viable” cases.
For some, staying in Mexico is probably a better and safer option, but folks don’t understand. Pro bono counsel can, and do, explain that.
By treating it as a humanitarian tragedy, which it is, rather than a “fake law enforcement crisis,” the Administration could have united the private sector, border states, communities, and Congress in supporting the effort; instead they sowed division, opposition, and unnecessary litigation. I’m actually sure that most of the teams of brilliant “Big Law” lawyers helping “Our Gang of Retired Judges” and other to file amicus briefs pro bono would just as soon be working on helping individuals through the system.
A timely, orderly, and fair system for screening, adjudicating, and recognizing refugee rights under our existing laws would have allowed the Administration to channel arrivals to various ports of entry.
I think that the result of such a system would have been that most families would have passed credible fear and the majority of those would have been granted asylum, withholding, or CAT.
Certainly, others think the result would have been mostly rejections (But, I note even in the “Trump Era” merits approval rates for Northern Triangle countries are in the 18-23% range — by no means an insignificant success rate). But, assuming “the rejectionists” are right, then they have the “timely rejection deterrent” that they so desire without stomping on anyone’s rights. (Although my experience over decades has been that rejections, detention, prosecutions, and harsh rhetoric are ineffective as deterrents).
No matter who is right about the ultimate results of fair asylum adjudication, under my system the Border Patrol could go back to their job of tracking down smugglers, drug traffickers, criminals, and the few suspected terrorists who seek to cross the border. While this might not satisfy anyone’s political agenda, it would be an effective and efficient use of law enforcement resources and sound administration of migrant protection and immigration laws. That’s certainly not what’s happening now.
Lawyers slam ‘Wild West’ atmosphere in Texas immigration court
(CNN)Judges at an immigration court in El Paso, Texas, are undermining due process, making inappropriate comments and fostering a “culture of hostility” toward immigrants, according to a new complaint.
The administrative complaint, sent to the Justice Department on Wednesday and obtained by CNN, slams a number of allegedly recurring practices at the El Paso Service Processing Center court, which hears cases of immigrants detained at several locations near the border.
“El Paso feels like the Wild West in terms of the immigration system,” said Kathryn Shepherd, national advocacy counsel for the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign and one of the complaint’s authors. “There’s so little oversight. No one is talking about how bad it is.”
The complaint comes at a time of mounting criticism of the Justice Department-run courts that decide whether individual immigrants should be deported. And it comes as officials warn the number of cases those courts are tasked with handling is rapidly increasing with an influx of more undocumented immigrants crossing the border.
Among the allegations:
• Judges at the El Paso Service Processing Center court have “notably high rates of denial,” the complaint says, noting that the court granted less than 4% of asylum applications heard there between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2017. Nationally, 35% of asylum cases in court are granted, according to the latest data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
• The complaint accuses judges in the court of making inappropriate comments that “undermine confidence in their impartiality” and are part of “a culture of hostility and contempt towards immigrants who appear” at the court. While hearing one case, a judge, according to the complaint, described the court as “the bye-bye place,” telling a lawyer, “You know your client is going bye-bye, right?” Another judge allegedly told court observers that “there’s really nothing going on right now in Latin America” that would provide grounds for asylum.
• Rules limiting evidence that can be presented at this court strip away due process, the complaint says. One judge’s standing order, for example, limits the length of exhibits that can be submitted to 100 pages. “This order is particularly harmful for individuals seeking protection whose cases are more complex or where country conditions are at issue,” the complaint says.
The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees US immigration courts, declined to comment on the allegations. Spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly confirmed that the office received the complaint letter on Wednesday.
An overwhelmed system
The allegations come amid mounting criticism of US immigration courts.
There are more than 60 immigration courts in the United States, and about 400 judges presiding over them. Immigration judges are hired directly by the attorney general and are employees of the Justice Department. They’re required to be US citizens, to have law degrees, to be active and licensed members of the bar and to have at least seven years of post-bar experience with trials or hearings, among other qualifications.
Both immigrant rights advocates and immigration hard-liners agree the court system is struggling under a crush of cases — but they diverge widely in their proposals for fixing it.
The Trump administration has moved to hire more judges and to pressure them to finish cases more quickly, accusing immigrants and the lawyers who represent them of gaming the system and overloading it with frivolous cases.
Advocates say the existing system denies due process and harms vulnerable people who have legitimate claims to remain in the United States but face an overwhelming number of obstacles to make their case. They’ve argued a major overhaul is necessary, proposing the creation of an independent court system that’s not part of the Justice Department.
In recent congressional testimony, Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry said his department had increased its number of case completions for the third consecutive year. And he said that every day, the office decides immigration cases “by fairly, expeditiously and uniformly interpreting and administering the nation’s immigration laws.”
‘The worst court in the country’
Lawyers argue the El Paso Service Processing Center facility is both a window into wider problems of the immigration system and a particularly egregious example.
“Immigration courts across the nation are suffering from many of the issues identified here,” the complaint alleges, “including the use of problematic standing orders, reports of inappropriate conduct from (immigration judges), and highly disparate grant rates which suggest that outcomes may turn on which court or judge is deciding the case rather than established principles and rules of law.”
But one reason advocates focused this complaint on this El Paso court, the American Immigration Council’s Shepherd said, was that it had the lowest asylum grant rate in the nation, based on statistics compiled from Justice Department reports over a five-year period.
Those figures, from annual fiscal year reports from 2013-2017, show the percentage of cases granted in the El Paso court has fluctuated in recent years, decreasing slightly from 2014-2016 and increasing slightly from 2016-2017. But for years, the figure has hovered at or under 5% — significantly below the national rate.
“If you look at the numbers, it’s the worst court in the country. But we wanted to understand really why that was the case,” she said. “What about El Paso, and what about how the judges conduct business in the court, makes it so hard to prevail?”
After researching that question and outlining their findings in the complaint, with the help of court observers and lawyers who regularly practice in the court, now Shepherd says they’re calling for the Justice Department to conduct its own investigation into the El Paso Service Processing Center court and other courts with similar problems.
Suggestions for improvement
An administrative complaint is a step in a formal grievance process used to bring issues to officials’ attention, Shepherd said, but does not trigger legal proceedings.
The complaint recommends a series of corrective measures, including providing more training on appropriate conduct for judges and requiring the Executive Office for Immigration Review to post publicly online any standing orders individual judges have issued.
No matter how officials respond, Shepherd said she hopes the complaint will be a jumping-off point for further research into how the court’s practices have affected people who were ordered deported there.
“It’s pretty overwhelming, actually,” she said, “if you think about the thousands of people who have passed through this immigration court and haven’t really had a chance to fight their case in a meaningful way.”
CNN’s Maegan Vazquez and Abby Phillip contributed to this report.
**********************************************
This isn’t Due Process! This isn’t justice! This is a farce, a fraud, and a parody of justice going on with the active encouragement and incompetent management of a Department of Justice that has abandoned due process and the rule of law in favor of restrictionist “deny ‘em all, deport ‘em all” policies actively promoted by Trump, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and adopted by current Attorney General Bill Barr.
This national disgrace and existential threat to our entire justice system and constitutional order will not end until the Immigration Courts are removed from the Department of Justice and reconstituted as an independent, fair, impartial court system dedicated to insuring fairness and due process for all, including the most vulnerable among us.
Establish an inclusive roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals and families who do not have a current pathway to legal status, but who live, work, and raise families in communities throughout the United States.
Provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and those under Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure, through the Dream and Promise Act of 2019, and defend DACA and TPS protections during the legislative process.
Revamp the visa system and strengthen family reunification through the Reuniting Families Act, reducing the number of people who are waiting to reunite with their families but are stuck in the bureaucratic backlog.
Terminate the three and ten year bars, which require undocumented individuals—who otherwise qualify for legal status—to leave the United States and their families behind for years before becoming citizens.
Rescind Trump’s discriminatory Muslim and Refugee Ban, other harmful immigration-related executive orders, racial profiling of minority communities, and expanded use of denaturalization as a frequently used course of action through the USCIS Denaturalization Task Force.
Increase refugee admissions, reversing cuts under Trump, and restoring our nation to its historic position as a moral leader providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, violence, disaster, and despair. Adapt these programs to account for new global challenges like climate change.
End cooperation agreements under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other such agreements between federal immigration enforcement agencies and state and local entities that erode trust between communities and local police.
Allow all deported veterans who honorably served in the armed forces of the United States to return to the United States and end the practice of deporting such veterans.
Strengthen labor protections for skilled and unskilled guest workers and end exploitative practices which hurt residents and guest workers, provide work authorization to spouses of participating individuals, and ensured skilled and unskilled guest workers have a fair opportunity to become residents and citizens through the Agricultural Worker Program Act.
Protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, ensuring these individuals are not subject to detention, deportation, or legal reprisal following their reporting these incidents.
2. Creating a Humane Border Policy
Repeal Section 1325 of Immigration and Nationality Act, which applies a criminal, rather than civil, violation to people apprehended when entering the United States. This provision has allowed for separation of children and families at our border, the large scale detention of tens of thousands of families, and has deterred migrants from turning themselves in to an immigration official within our borders. The widespread detention of these individuals and families at our border has overburdened our justice system, been ineffective at deterring migration, and has cost our government billions of dollars.
Effectively end the use of detention in conducting immigration enforcement, except in serious cases.Utilize cost-effective and more humane alternatives to detention, which draw on the successes of prior efforts like the Family Case Management Program. Ensure all individuals have access to a bond hearing and that vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and members of the LGBTQ community are not placed in civil detention.
Eliminate the for-profit immigration detention and prison industry, which monetizes the detention of migrants and children.
End immigration enforcement raids at or near sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses.
Reconstitute the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) by splitting the agency in half and re-assigning enforcement functions within the Enforcement and Removal Operations to other agencies, including the Department of Justice. There must be a thorough investigation of ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Justice’s role in family separation policies instituted by the Trump administration.
Reprioritize Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to focus its efforts on border-related activities including drug and human trafficking, rather than law enforcement activities in the interior of the United States. Extend Department of Justice civil rights jurisdiction to CBP, and adopt best practices employed in law enforcement, including body-worn cameras and strong accountability policies.
End wasteful, ineffective and invasive border wall construction and consult with border communities about repairing environmental and other damage already done.
Properly equip our ports of entry, investing in infrastructure, staff, and technology to process claims and prevent human and drug trafficking.
End asylum “metering” and the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, ensuring all asylum seekers are able to present their claims to U.S.officials.
Create a well-resourced and independent immigration court system under Article 1 of the Constitution, outside the Department of Justice, to increase the hiring and retention of independent judges to adjudicate immigration claims faster.
Increase access to legal assistance for individuals and families presenting asylum claims, ensuring individuals understand their rights and are able to make an informed and accurate request for asylum. Guarantee counsel for all children in the immigration enforcement system.
Protect victims of domestic and gang violence, by reversing guidance by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that prohibited asylum claims on the basis of credible fear stemming from domestic or gang violence.
3. Establishing a 21st Century ‘Marshall Plan’ for Central America
Prioritize high-level diplomacy with our neighbors in Latin America, a region where challenges in governance and economic development have consequences to migration to the United States, U.S. economic growth, and regional instability.
Ensure higher standards of governance, transparency, rule-of-law, and anti-corruption practice as the heart of U.S. engagement with Central America, rejecting the idea that regional stability requires overlooking authoritarian actions.
Enlist all actors in Central America to be part of the solution by restoring U.S. credibility on corruption and transparency and encouraging private sector, civil society, and local governments to work together – rather than at cross purposes – to build sustainable, equitable societies.
Bolster economic development, superior labor rights, and environmentally sustainable jobs, allowing individuals to build a life in their communities rather than make a dangerous journey leaving their homes.
Ensure regional partners are part of the solution by working with countries in the Western Hemisphere to channel resources to address development challenges in Central America, including through a newly constituted multilateral development fund focused on sustainable and inclusive economic growth in Central America.
Target illicit networks and transnational criminal organizations through law enforcement actions and sanctions mechanisms to eliminate their ability to raise revenue from illegal activities like human and drug trafficking and public corruption.
Re-establish the Central American Minors program, which allows individuals in the United States to petition for their minor children residing in Central America to apply for resettlement in the U.S. while their applications are pending.
Increase funding for bottom-up development and violence prevention programs, including the Inter-American Foundation, to spur initiatives that prevent violence at the local level, support public health and nutrition, and partner with the private sector to create jobs.
Finally a thoughtful, empirically-based, plan that stops wasting money, harming people, and limiting America’s future: Moving us forward rather than “doubling down” on all of the worst failures and most dismal mistakes of the past.
Castro’s plan echoes many of the ideas I have been promoting on immigrationcourtside.com and reflects the “battle plan” of the “New Due Process Army.” Most important, it establishes an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, the key to making any reforms effective and bringing back the essential emphasis on fulfilling our Constitutional requirement to “guarantee fairness and Due Process for all.”
While stopping short of recommending “universal representation,” something I would favor, Castro does:
Recognize the importance of increasing, rather than intentionally limiting access to counsel;
Promote “know your rights” presentations that help individuals understand the system, its requirements, their responsibilities, and to make informed decisions about how to proceed; and
Universal representation for children in Immigration Court (thus, finally ending one of the most grotesque “Due Process Farces” in modern U.S. legal history).
So far, Castro remains “below the radar” in the overcrowded race to be the 2020 Democratic standard-bearer. But, even if his presidential campaign fails to “catch fire” his thoughtful, humane, practical, and forward-looking immigration agenda deserves attention and emulation.
Many thanks to Nolan Rappaport for passing this along.
There was no reason to think that the relatively routine immigration case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum would make headlines.
Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who entered the United States at 17, was one of thousands who were part of 2014’s “surge” of unaccompanied minors. Like most of those minors, he was eventually released to the custody of a relative—in this case, a brother-in-law who lived outside Pittsburgh. The government repeatedly sent notices to appear at immigration court hearings to that address, but Castro-Tum never showed up.
Normally, that’s the end of the story, since failure to appear in immigration court generally results in a deportation. But Judge Steven Morley of the Philadelphia immigration court suspected the address on file for Castro-Tum was not correct, in part because that’s a common problem with addresses provided for unaccompanied minors. So Morley administratively closed the case, essentially pausing it to look into the address problem. The government appealed it, along with about 200 similar cases, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court of next resort in immigration cases, instructed Morley to deport Castro-Tum.
But before he could do that, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions assigned the case to himself, a power the attorney general has as the head of the federal agency that controls the immigration courts. His opinion in Matter of Castro-Tum, issued in May 2018, says immigration judges have no legal authority to administratively close cases. That alone would have been a big deal in the immigration law world because it took away a well-established tool for managing the already overwhelmed immigration court dockets.
Photo of Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions by Shutterstock.
But what came next drew widespread attention among immigration lawyers as well as the national media, catapulting the otherwise unknown case of a single teenage immigrant into the spotlight. On remand, Morley continued the case to resolve the address problem—and immigration court leadership promptly took it away from him, reassigning it to an administrative judge. Then they reassigned 86 more of his cases. According to a grievance filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union that represents Morley, a supervisor told him that he had been expected to order Castro-Tum deported if he didn’t appear.
NAIJ President A. Ashley Tabaddor says that’s not actually in Sessions’ opinion—and if it were, it would violate federal regulations on immigration judges’ independence. (Morley, like most sitting immigration judges, could not comment on the case per Justice Department policy. Tabaddor, who is also a sitting judge, stresses that she is speaking only in her role as union president.)
“We think that is a clear, clear violation of a judge’s decisional independence,” says Tabaddor, who presides in Los Angeles. “When you tell a judge how the process … should be handled, by definition, that is going to have an impact, and a significant impact, on the outcome.”
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the DOJ agency that controls the immigration courts, declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Tabaddor said in January that she was unaware of litigation related to the matter.
Before Sessions’ opinion, the ABA had urged in an amicus brief to the DOJ that the attorney general continue to allow administrative closure in immigration cases, citing it as a “practical necessity” for judges to deal with the courts’ huge backlog.
Immigration courts have always been susceptible to politics; presidents have, for example, rearranged dockets to suit their political needs. But the NAIJ and others are concerned that the Trump administration has moved from reprioritizing cases to deliberately trying to affect case outcomes. Changes that have caused concern include unilateral changes to case law, like the one Sessions made in Castro-Tum; pressure on judges to rule faster; and even allegations that the DOJ is considering political affiliation in hiring new immigration judges.
“It’s all part of what our association has referred to as ‘the deportation machine,’ ” says Jeremy McKinney, treasurer of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “In other words, transforming a court that is supposed to be an independent and neutral trier of law and fact into an arm of law enforcement.”
A TROUBLED HOME
For critics, a major problem with the immigration courts is where they’re housed: within the Department of Justice, an executive-branch department headed by a politically appointed leader. That’s unlike the Article III federal courts or most of the federal administrative law courts.
Immigration law observers have long worried that this exposes the courts to political interference—and recent history supports that. In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that political appointees had hired only politically connected Republicans as immigration judges between 2004 and 2006, despite knowing judges were part of the civil service system. Over the past 30 years, several attorneys general have referred themselves cases in order to overturn the decisions of predecessors from a different party. Presidents of both parties have reprioritized dockets for political reasons.
Most of that is perfectly legal and within the political leadership’s powers—and to some observers, that’s a problem. Take the fact that attorneys general may certify Board of Immigration Appeals cases to themselves. There’s no requirement that they follow precedent or consult anyone else. This permits an attorney general to change case law unilaterally.
“Just allowing that kind of interference compromises the integrity of the court,” Tabaddor says. “Because that’s not how a court is supposed to run. That’s not how law is supposed to be developed.”
Asked for comment on the matter, Justice Department speechwriter Steven Stafford noted that the attorney general’s legal authority to refer himself cases, and authority to control the immigration courts and their judges, is clear under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“Further, the acting attorney general’s exercise of this authority has been entirely appropriate in each particular case,” Stafford said in an emailed statement. “Those who oppose the use of this authority have a problem not with the acting attorney general, but with the INA.”
If this power of the attorney general is obscure, that might be because most—from both parties—have used it sparingly. Using DOJ archives of agency decisions, the ABA Journal determined that over three eight-year presidencies, former President Barack Obama’s two attorneys general referred themselves a total of four cases; George W. Bush’s three AGs referred themselves 10 cases; and Bill Clinton’s one AG referred herself one case. The ABA Journal found no record of any self-referrals during new Attorney General William Barr’s first time in the job, from 1991 to 1993.
By contrast, Sessions referred himself seven cases during 21 months in office, though he was able to publish decisions on only five before President Donald Trump asked him to resign.
Any hope that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker would take a lighter touch were dashed in December, when Whitaker certified two cases to himself: Matter of Castillo-Perez, concerning intoxicated driving and the good moral character standard in immigration law, and Matter of LEA, on whether a family connection can be the basis of an asylum claim. The cases were waiting for Barr after he was sworn in.
And the decisions Sessions handed down are not small tweaks. Take Matter of AB, in which Sessions decided that asylum should only rarely be available to people fleeing serious crimes not sponsored by a government. (“AB” are the initials of a woman who said she suffered prolonged domestic violence in El Salvador.) Essentially, Sessions ruled that when the persecution doesn’t come from the government itself, asylum claimants must work harder to show that the home government couldn’t or wouldn’t protect them.
“In practice, [nongovernmental violence] claims are unlikely to satisfy the statutory grounds for proving group persecution that the government is unable or unwilling to address,” Sessions wrote. “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”
Infographic by Sara Wadford
In making that ruling, Sessions swept away precedents set by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal appeals courts on what constitutes a “particular social group” under asylum law.
“The attorney general did not rewrite the underlying test for who qualifies for asylum and who does not,” says McKinney, who also runs McKinney Immigration Law in Greensboro, North Carolina. “He just announced that he would have applied the test differently, and his result would have been different. It’s a very, very strange way to issue sweeping precedent decisions.”
Photo of Jeremy McKinney by Shelli Craig Photography
The ruling also removed the basis for asylum claims from thousands of Central Americans who arrived in the United States in recent years to flee uncontrolled domestic abuse or gang violence in their home countries. Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt does not believe that’s a coincidence.
“The grounds that some people have been succeeding on are domestic violence and family-based claims,” says Schmidt, who belongs to the ABA Judicial Division’s National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary.” So it’s basically in my view a race-based attack on Central American asylum seekers.”
Because of this, Matter of AB attracted substantial attention. Sessions invited amicus briefs, and the ABA was one of many organizations that filed one, urging the attorney general to let the case law stand. That brief argues that federal appeals courts and the board of appeals have repeatedly found non-state-sponsored crimes—organized crime, “honor killings,” female genital mutilation—adequate for granting asylum. It also pointed out that the attorney general may not unilaterally overturn decisions of the federal appeals courts; the American Civil Liberties Union later cited this theory when it sued the federal government over AB. It won an injunction in that case in December.
It’s still possible to grant asylum on gang or domestic violence grounds, says retired immigration Judge Carol King, also part of the National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary, but everyone doesn’t see it that way.
“The danger is that the agency has been now encouraging judges not even to hold hearings if the cases are based on domestic violence,” says King, now a Berkeley, California-based consultant to immigration lawyers.
GUMMING UP THE WORKS
And that’s just asylum. For the immigration court system as a whole—and especially for working immigration judges—bigger problems have emerged from three decisions from Sessions that constrain judges’ ability to end or pause cases. That could worsen the already substantial backlog of cases in immigration court, which totaled more than 829,000 pending cases as of February, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Chief among these is Castro-Tum, the administrative closure case. Administrative closure ends a case without a decision, which permits judges to take cases off their dockets if they’re not ready to go forward. This was Morley’s intention in Castro-Tum, where the judge was concerned that the young man’s address was unreliable. Indeed, Tabaddor says the notice to appear was returned to the court after Castro-Tum was ordered deported; immigrant advocates suspect he may have returned to Guatemala.
There are multiple reasons why a pause might be desirable, McKinney explains. Many immigration cases depend on outside agencies’ actions; the State Department issues visas, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confers green cards and citizenship. Some benefits are also available through state courts, and cases may hinge on a decision from a police agency or an expert of some kind.
For example, McKinney cites special immigrant juvenile status. That’s an immigration status granted to minors who were abandoned, abused or neglected by one or both parents, and recipients must get a court order saying so.
“You go through state court, and then you submit an application to USCIS,” McKinney says. “So what we would see generally is these cases would be either administratively closed or given extended continuances, and then the person would pursue the status. Those kids are now being ordered deported.”
Continuances could have helped, but three months after Castro-Tum, Sessions handed down another decision, Matter of LABR, that requires judges to write a full decision every time they grant a continuance.
“I probably got five to 40 requests for continuances daily when I was on the bench,” King says. “It discourages granting continuances because they’re not requiring the same sort of diligence if a judge denies the continuance.”
Photo of Carol King by Allan Brill
That’s why King believes LABR weighs the decision-making in favor of deportation. It’s also likely to drastically limit judges’ ability to end or postpone cases, along with Castro-Tum and a third decision from Sessions—Matter of SOG and FDB, which limits judges’ ability to terminate or dismiss deportation cases. In addition to making it harder for judges to manage their workloads, King says it’s bad for the system as a whole.
“It means that every case has to come into court, and if it’s not ready to go for some reason, it has to be reset in court,” she says. “It encourages double-booking of cases … which means that parties are not encouraged to be prepared.”
For clients and practitioners, McKinney says the end result is likely to be a flood of appeals.
“We had a 10-year-old ordered deported [while waiting for a USCIS decision],” he says. “Do you think we just said, ‘OK, judge,’ with the 10-year-old and then just took our order of deportation? No, we appealed!” After the Board of Immigration Appeals, litigants can take their cases to the federal appeals court for their circuits, and McKinney believes many will. Thus, he predicts that much of the immigration court backlog will filter up to the appeals courts in a few years.
CARROT OR STICK?
The DOJ is well aware of the backlog and has hired judges aggressively to address it. Several of the actions Sessions took on immigration were announced as ways to address that backlog.
That includes another of his controversial decisions: imposing quotas on immigration judges. Starting with the 2019 fiscal year, judges who want to be rated “satisfactory” on their performance reviews must complete at least 700 cases per year. No more than 15 percent of those cases should be overturned on appeal. There are also completion requirements for specific types of cases. A software dashboard allows judges to check their progress daily.
Asked about this in December, Executive Office for Immigration Review spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly pointed the ABA Journal to a public conversation that agency Director James McHenry had in May 2018 with Andrew Arthur, executive director of the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies. McHenry told Arthur that EOIR plans to take circumstances into account when evaluating judges under the new standards—most likely in fall 2019. However, McHenry said EOIR believes that the numbers chosen are reasonable expectations for experienced and properly trained judges.
The NAIJ and some retired judges don’t agree, in part because two judges may handle very different kinds of dockets. Cases involving serious criminal convictions, for example, might be quicker than asylum cases involving unaccompanied minors.
McHenry also testified about the changes before Congress, where he said the performance measures were “neither novel nor unique to EOIR,” and in line with measures recommended by the ABA and used by other federal administrative law systems.
Tabaddor sees that differently.
“The numbers are used as what I would say a carrot in many courts; it’s used to evaluate whether [changes] are needed,” she says. “But no legitimate court uses quotas and deadlines as a stick to put a judge’s job on the line, which directly interferes with their ability to sit impartially on a case.”
The ABA Judicial Division’s 2005 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance do not mention case completions. They say judges should be evaluated on legal ability, integrity, communication, professionalism and administrative ability. They also say evaluations shouldn’t compromise judicial independence and “should be free from political, ideological and issue-oriented considerations.”
King doesn’t think that’s the case here.
“To have judges evaluated on how quickly they’re pushing cases through the system is a really, really dangerous thing to do,” she says. “Because you’re basically tying the judges’ job security to whether they’re pushing cases through, and it’s clear from this administration that their idea with pushing cases through the system is to deny as many as possible.”
Tabaddor sees this as another encroachment on immigration judges’ independence.
“It’s basically psychological warfare with judges, [creating] a constant reminder of their numbers through this dashboard and a constant pressure to reach these unreasonable goals,” she says.
McKinney says he has seen this play out in practice. In one case, he discovered that his client’s minor child had been sexually assaulted in their home country, which became important to the family’s asylum application. The minor had not spoken to a mental health counselor, so McKinney moved for a continuance to allow her to do that. The judge denied it, in part because the evidence for the assault was not from a mental health professional.
“So what we got was … only half-baked consideration, because obviously in the motion we are asking for the time to talk to the precise professional that the judge wanted the minor child to talk to,” he says. “That is the pressure these judges are under.”
JOB OFFERS RESCINDED
The Justice Department actions raised earlier in this story may be concerning to some people, but they’re perfectly legal. However, there are also allegations that the Justice Department is taking politics into account in hiring immigration judges, who are part of the civil service system. The allegations have not been proved—but if true, they might break the law.
Washington, D.C., labor law attorney Zachary Henige says he has been approached by several people who were offered jobs as immigration judges or members of the Board of Immigration Appeals but had those offers rescinded after the 2016 election for what they believe are political reasons. The ABA Journal spoke to Henige about Dorothea Lay, the only client who has authorized him to discuss her case.
Photo of Zachary Henige courtesy of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch.
Lay has spent 25 years in the federal government’s immigration services agencies, and she is currently at USCIS. She was offered a job at the appeals board in October 2016. This required a fresh background check (she already has clearance at her existing job), so she understood that she would have to wait to finalize the job.
In late February 2017, Lay did hear back—but only via a two-sentence letter. It said that during the time it had taken to complete the background check, the needs of the agency had evolved, so EOIR was withdrawing the offer. However, the letter was postmarked on the same day that EOIR announced it would expand the number of seats on the board from 17 to 21—requiring four new hires. That’s one reason Lay was not convinced the agency’s needs had changed.
Another was that two of Lay’s recommenders were political appointees of Democrats. Her application also showed that she had worked on issues the Trump administration strongly opposed, including domestic violence as a basis for asylum, the issue in AB. Thus, it would have been easy to guess her politics. Asked about the allegations, EOIR spokeswoman Mattingly did not address them specifically, instead redirecting her comments about others who were hired.
Lay is pursuing a complaint through the federal government’s Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates alleged violations of the merit system for federal employees. Henige says he has been approached by others who had job offers rescinded after the election, not all of whom retained him.
Members of Congress have also gotten involved. In April 2018, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Don Beyer of Virginia and Lloyd Doggett and Joaquin Castro of Texas wrote a letter to the Justice Department, saying multiple people had approached their offices after having job offers suspended or withdrawn for suspected political reasons.
Six people were hired not long after the letter, according to a statement from Cummings and Doggett. The DOJ did not make its response public, but that response was apparently leaked to Fox News, which said the DOJ acknowledged that 14 people were no longer under consideration for jobs, and gave nonpolitical explanations for all of those decisions.
Henige notes that there’s precedent for improperly politicized hiring, including the 2008 inspector general report from the DOJ. After that became a scandal in 2007, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales implemented a hiring process intend-ed to insulate the immigration courts from political considerations, with final candidate recommendation duties shared by the EOIR director, a senior career employee and a senior political appointee.
In 2017, however, Sessions authorized substantial changes to that process, according to a memo uncovered by Human Rights First, a New York-based nonprofit that advocates for human rights and the rule of law, through the Freedom of Information Act. Those changes removed the EOIR director or his designee from the final recommendation stage and removed the chief immigration judge from an earlier stage. The effect is less direct oversight from the agency that will actually employ the judges, and a greater proportion of responsibility to the political appointee.
HIT THE ROAD, JUDGE
Immigration judges aren’t on the edge of revolt. Not every judge agrees with the NAIJ or the retired judges quoted for this article. Arthur, for example—a retired immigration judge—has praised both the use of self-certifications and some of the decisions Sessions made that way.
Perhaps more importantly, immigration judges have limited recourse. As career federal employees, they aren’t legally permitted to strike, Tabaddor says, and lawsuits are limited to cases of individual judges with specific grievances. She says labor union negotiations have been minimally helpful. The grievance filed after the cases were taken from Morley was denied by EOIR last fall on the grounds that EOIR’s actions were lawful, and the NAIJ has merely filed formal correspondences on other matters.
Photo of Ashley Tabaddor by Melodi Miremadi
That’s why Tabaddor wants a more permanent solution: Take the immigration courts out of the Justice Department and put them into an independent agency.
“It’s been done with the bankruptcy courts, it’s been done with the Court of Federal Claims, it’s been done with Tax Court,” she says. “Having a court within the same agency that basically has a law enforcement mandate cannot be defended.”
Mattingly says EOIR believes this is unnecessary and would take substantial resources. But it’s a long-standing goal—not just for NAIJ, but for the ABA House of Delegates, which called for independent immigration courts in 2010’s Resolution 114F. More recently, former ABA President Hilarie Bass testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration in 2018 in favor of independent immigration courts, as did Tabaddor. Arthur testified against it, citing constitutional concerns. Immigration court independence has also long been on the wish lists of AILA and the Federal Bar Association.
The four organizations have been working on legislation to make that a reality, McKinney says, though the coalition differs on details of how best to structure the agency. But the goal is the same: insulating the immigration courts from politics by moving them into an independent agency.
McKinney, who is actively involved in the effort through AILA, notes that major agency reforms don’t happen overnight—but he’s bullish about the possibilities.
“We have seen some genuine interest, and now that the Democrats are taking control of the House, we will see if that can turn into actual legislation,” McKinney says. “My heart goes out to the literally thousands of people who are going to be victims of this flawed system until the day comes that we can get it fixed. But I believe that we can get it fixed.”
*****************************************
Jeremy McKinney is right. Thousands of humans have been and will continue to be victimized by this screwed up system until it finally gets fixed. Immigration Judges have become “robed pawns” in what has become a cruel parody of justice. And, to be honest about it, far, far too many Article III Judges “punt” on their oaths of office by giving unwarranted “deference” to a system that merits none. Indeed, in a “court” controlled by prosecutors and driven by overtly political, restrictionist agendas, it would make much more sense and be fairer to presume that each removal order is biased in favor of DHS unless the DOJ can establish otherwise.
ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION CONFIRMS WHAT I’VE BEEN BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG:IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE “FUBAR” & INTENTIONALLY BEING MADE WORSE BY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE”
Washington, DC. At a public meeting today at the National Press Club, the ABA Commission on Immigration rolled out its 2019 update to its 2010 report on “Reforming the Immigration System.” ABA President Bob Carlson led off by strongly reinforcing the organization’s commitment to Due Process and equal justice for all. Legislation, restructuring, and reform are the three themes.
In short, most of the helpful suggestions in the 2010 report were ignored. Some of the few that were implemented by the Obama Administration, the most helpful of which was more widespread use of prosecutorial discretion to rationalize court dockets, were intentionally reversed by the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration is mindlessly leading a “race to the bottom” where fairness, impartiality, scholarship, efficiency, and due process have incredibly and inexcusably regressed while backlogs have grown exponentially as a result.
One of the key findings was that under the Trump Administration, “policies have been put in place that seek to limit access to asylum, counsel, and the courts themselves. There is little regard for the human cost of detention and deportation.”
The solution set forth by the ABA is very straightforward: Congress must create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch. Until that happens, justice and due process will continue to be compromised in Immigration Court, and our entire legal system will be endangered.
One of the most astute observations by the panelists was that putting more new judges into the current dysfunctional court system would be counterproductive. Every American should be ashamed of the Trump Administration’s “maliciously incompetent” maladministration and intentional abuse of our Immigration Court system. When asked about what they could do to address this national disgrace, panelists told the audience to “contact your legislators and demand action on Article I and other essential reforms contained in the report.”
At the end of the presentation, the ABA presented an award to Arnold & Porter partner Larry Schneider for the firm’s help in researching and preparing the report.
FULL DISCLOSURE:I previously was a witness before the ABA Commission.
==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEThe Immigration Court backlog continues to rise. As of February 28, 2019, the number of pending cases on the court’s active docket topped eight hundred and fifty-five thousand (855,807) cases. This is an increase of over three hundred thousand (313,396) pending cases over the backlog at the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This figure does not include the over three hundred thousand previously completed cases that EOIR placed back on the “pending” rolls that have not yet been put onto the active docket.
Recent family arrivals now represent just 4 percent of the current court’s backlog. Since September 2018 when tracking of family units began, about one out of every four newly initiated filings recorded by the Immigration Court have been designated by DHS as “family unit” cases. The actual number of families involved were less than half this since each parent and each child are counted as separate “court cases” even though many are likely to be heard together and resolved as one consolidated family unit.
There has been no systematic accounting of how many cases involving families arriving at the border will involve Immigration Court proceedings in their resolution. Families arriving at the border do not automatically have the right to file for asylum in Immigration Court. Thus far, the number of families apprehended by the Border Patrol or detained at ports of entry dwarf the actual number of these cases that have made their way to Immigration Court.
In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through February 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse
***********************************************
Remember, folks, the next time you hear the Administration’s “professional liars” like Kirstjen Nielsen engage in bogus “hand wringing” and call for crackdowns on asylum applicants, their lawyers, and drastic changes to asylum law — she is covering up and shifting the blame for grossly incompetent management of the asylum program and the Immigration Courts by this Administration. “Victim blaming and shaming” — a staple of the Trump Kakistocracy — is about as low as it goes.
While laws can always be improved — for example an Article I U.S. Immigration Court, adding gender-based asylum to the “refugee” definition, supporting legal representation for arriving asylum seekers, and increasing the number and initial jurisdiction to grant asylum of the Asylum Officers should be “bipartisan no brainers” — the real problem here is not the law!
No, it’s the unwillingness of this Administration to follow laws protecting refugees, allow for robust “out of country processing” of refugees from Central America, and eliminate anti-asylum, anti-Latino, and anti-female bias from our asylum adjudication system that has created a “self-constructed crisis.”
Insist that this Administration take responsibility for their “designed to fail,” White Nationalist, restrictionist policies, improve performance, and administer refugee and asylum laws fairly, impartially, and in accordance with Due Process under our Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the already far too limited rights of asylum seekers and migrants to receive fair, honest, and humane treatment in accordance with constitutional Due Process be reduced as this Administration is always disingenuously seeking. And the money being illegally diverted and wasted on a semi-nonsensical “Wall” could and should much better be spent on improving our current asylum system and making it work — without any more illegal “gimmicks” such as attempting to rewrite the statutes by regulation, the bogus and ill-conceived “Migrant Protection Protocols,” and “slow walking” the applications of those who line up patiently to apply for asylum at legal ports of entry.
Congratulations on your appointment as U.S. Immigration Judges. It’s a difficult and important judicial position under the best of circumstances. Given the many controversies surrounding immigration today your job is even more challenging.
You face an overwhelming backlog resulting from factors largely beyond your control. Rather than being consumed or demoralized by that backlog, your job is to guarantee fairness and due process in each individual case coming before you. This requires you to act independently and resist pressures, from any quarter, to “cut corners” or otherwise compromise your constitutional duty to act impartially, fairly, and professionally toward each individual appearing before you.
While you occupy an unusual position as quasi-judicial officers who are also employed by Department of Justice, the Department regulations charge you with exercising your “independent judgment and discretion and . . . [taking] any action consistent with [your] authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.”
Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case U.S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) stated with respect to your similarly situated judicial colleagues on the Board of Immigration Appeals that each administrative judge serving under these regulations “must exercise his authority according to his own understanding and conscience. This applies with equal force to the Board and the Attorney General. In short, as long as the regulations remain operative, the Attorney General denies himself the right to sidestep the Board or dictate its decision in any manner.”
Consequently, although as a cabinet officer the Attorney General might sometimes take certain positions or advocate certain policies, you must consider only the facts, the statutes, the regulations, and any precedent decisions directly relevant to your particular case in reaching your decisions. And, you must always treat the Department of Homeland Security as a separate party, with the same respect and consideration that you will give to individuals coming before you and their attorneys. That you are all employees of the same Government should not entitle DHS to special or preferable treatment or deference not afforded to other parties coming before your courts.
The motto of the Department of Justice, basically refers to one “who prosecutes in the name of justice.” Thus, our Department stands alone in incorporating a moral principle — the requirement of doing justice — into its mission. As that great American Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Some of the most vulnerable individuals entitled to due process under our Constitution will come before you in your courts. Your awesome and solemn responsibility is to insure that they receive due process and fairness — in other words justice — no matter how difficult their individual circumstances might be or any handicaps under which you might be operating.
Many of those arriving in the United States today are applying for asylum under our laws. Those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion are eligible for protection. In INS v.Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S 421 (1987) our Supreme Court instructed us to apply the asylum standard in a generous manner. Others who face torture at the hands of, or with the “willful blindness” of, their governments, are entitled to protection without having to establish that the torture results from one of the foregoing “protected grounds.” An important part of your job will be insure that those who qualify for protection under our laws are given a full and fair chance to prepare their cases, to be represented by counsel of their choice, receive fair and reasoned decisions, and are not unfairly returned to harm in the countries they fled.
For my part, I pledge that during the time I remain with the Department of Justice I will do everything in my power to protect your quasi-judicial independence from improper influence, to allow you to manage your own dockets and develop “best practices” without bureaucratic interference, and to secure for you the resources you need to do your critically important jobs. I trust that my successor will do likewise.
The vision of our Immigration Courts is “through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Your challenge is to do everything within your power to make that vision a reality each day you are on the bench.
Congratulations again on your selection and on choosing to serve our country in these important judicial positions at this critical juncture in our history. I thank you in advance for your future service and commitment to insuring equal justice for all. Good luck, do great things, and make due process for all your daily goal.
**************************************
Someday, we will once again have an Attorney General and a DAG who truly respect Constitutional Due Process, don’t fear independent judicial decision-making, and have the courage and backbone to “just say no” to White Nationalist restricitionist agendas that conflict with our Constitution, our statutes, our international obligations, common human decency, and what were once almost universally considered “true American values.”
Until then, it will be up to the “New Due Process Army” and their allies to keep Due Process and fairness for all of us alive during what will go down as one of the darkest and most evil periods in modern American history.
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Opening Remarks at Investiture of 31 Newly Appointed Immigration Judges
Washington, DC
~
Friday, March 15, 2019
Thank you, James, for that kind introduction. I appreciate your devoted service to the Department of Justice.
I also want to thank Deputy Chief Judges Santoro and Cheng, and Assistant Chief Judges Doolittle, Owen, Mart, and Weiss.
I am grateful to Marcia Lee-Sullivan and Karen Manna for helping to plan this event.
Above all, I want to congratulate our 31 new immigration judges for joining the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and welcome the family members and friends who are with us today.
I took my first oath as a Department of Justice employee in 1990. I hope it is as meaningful to you as it is to me. They have sworn me in several more times over the past three decades. But they never swear you out.
The oath obligates you to support and defend the Constitution. Our nation was not united by race, ethnicity, religion, or even national origin. The founders’ goal of bringing peoples of the world together in a single nation is reflected in the motto adopted at the founding of our Republic: e pluribus unum: from the many, one. Our one nation is unified by our shared commitment to the principles of the United States Constitution. The preamble sets forth, among its primary goals, to “establish Justice.” Justice – or the fair application of the rule of law – is the essence of America.
The right to live and work in America is a tremendous privilege. It is a valuable privilege. It is a privilege that has meaning only if we exercise our right and duty to protect it by setting rules for people who seek to acquire the privilege.
It is right and proper for us to insist that people who desire to join our nation – people who want themselves and their children to join the privileged group who define ourselves as “we, the people” – start by following the rules governing admission and citizenship.
The duties imposed by your oath of office include faithfully enforcing those rules.
America’s immigration laws are generous and welcoming, but they are intended to protect the rights and advance the interests of current and future citizens.
More than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt remarked that “[t]he average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation.” Roosevelt did not limit his remarks to birthright citizens. He said, “We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise …. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.”
Obeying the law when seeking entry to the United States is an essential component of “fealty to this country.”
Estimates suggest that there are more than 44 million people in our country who were not American citizens at birth. That is almost 14 percent of our population, the largest share in more than a century. America’s foreign-born population exceeds the total population of California, our most populous state, and it is larger than the entire population of Argentina.
Those numbers continue to grow. Every year, we generously extend lawful permanent resident status to more than one million people, and we allot hundreds of thousands of student visas and temporary work visas.
It is no surprise that so many people want to join us. According to the World Bank, nearly half of the world lives on less than $5.50 per day. According to a recent Gallup poll, 150 million people around the world want to immigrate to the United States. We cannot take them all.
For our system to be fair, it must be carried out faithfully and equitably. It must be fair to all who desire to come here — whether they live south of our border or an ocean away.
Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.
Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.
The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.
You take office at a critical time. The number of immigration cases filed each year is rapidly increasing. In February, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended 66,000 aliens who unlawfully entered our country between ports of entry along the southwest border. On average, our colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security encounter about 3,000 aliens every day along the southern border.
Most of them cross the border unlawfully, between points of entry. They chose not to follow the law. Because they do not follow the law, many of them expose themselves and their children to exploitation and abuse. Many pay criminal smugglers because they know that they might not be allowed to enter lawfully. Nonetheless, our legal system protects them.
The massive influx of aliens who arrive in America illegally and invoke due process rights under our law creates a staggering volume of immigration cases that require resolution.
The primary factor driving the increasing backlog is the significant increase in asylum applications. Asylum applications have more than tripled in less than five years.
Our asylum system was established in the aftermath of World War II. America seemed to have limitless space at that time, and the goal was to protect minority groups from persecution by foreign states, the kind of persecution that the world witnessed during World War II and which was prevalent at that time in the purges conducted by our erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.
The law authorizes asylum only for victims who suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or because of their political opinion.
Other reasons for seeking to immigrate may be rational and even laudable. We certainly understand why foreigners wish to come to America in search of better opportunities for themselves and their children. America is a great nation that does not need walls to keep its citizens from leaving, like the Soviet Union. We build walls only to protect ourselves and enforce our rules.
The duty of our immigration judges is to honestly find the facts and faithfully apply the laws, so that people obtain asylum only if they qualify for it under the statute.
We are taking steps to address the massive influx of cases. We are hiring more judges; we are holding more hearings; and we are completing more cases, more quickly.
Since President Trump’s inauguration, the Department of Justice has hired more immigration judges than in the previous seven years combined. We now employ the largest number of immigration judges in history. There are 48 percent more immigration judges than three years ago, and 71 percent more than five years ago.
And we are finding innovative ways to become more efficient. For example, the Department has had great success using video teleconference technology, which enables judges to share the case burden with one another across the country.
We will look for other ways to become more efficient and more effective. But ultimately we are depending upon you, both to perform your duties expeditiously, and to let us know when you identify opportunities for improvement.
One of my favorite management parables is about a child who watches her mother prepare a roast beef. The mother cuts the ends off the roast before she puts it in the oven. The child asks why. The mother says that she learned it from her mother. So the child asks her grandmother. The grandmother explains, “When your mother was a child, I cut the ends off because my pan was too small to fit the whole roast beef.”
The moral is that the solutions of the past are not necessarily the right solutions today. Circumstances change. Sometimes we need to reconsider assumptions and realign our practices to achieve our goals. The movie “Moneyball,” based on a book by Michael Lewis, summarizes the lesson in three words borrowed from Charles Darwin: “Adapt or die.” Some of the best ideas to enhance efficiency come from relatively new employees who are not accustomed to existing bureaucratic rules. If you think you know a better way to accomplish our mission, please speak up and let us know.
Our challenges are daunting. But you can be part of the solution.
Whether the immigration backlog continues to grow depends in large part on how immigration judges discharge their duties.
We chose you because of your qualifications, your legal skills, and your personal integrity. We believe that you are ready for this challenge.
Thank you for your willingness to serve, and welcome to the Department of Justice.
*********************************************
There were a few good things about Rosenstein’s presentation:
As I had predicted would happen under Barr, he improved the tone by ditching the overt appeals to White Nationalism, racist dog whistles, and misogyny present in most of Sessions’s rhetoric:
He also dropped the vicious, disingenuous attacks on the private bar that were a staple of Sessions’s anti-immigrant screeds;
He at least acknowledges that immigrants are a large permanent part of our society, although downplaying the truth that, contrary to Stephen Miller and other Trump restrictionists, we are, in fact, a “nation of immigrants;”
He acknowledges the obligation to be “fair to all who desire to come here — whether they live south of our border or an ocean away;”
He at least grudgingly recognizes that all who come here are entitled to certain protections under our legal system regardless of the circumstances of entry (something that the DOJ and the Administration actually have failed to respect in practice);
He also recognizes another truth that his Department often chooses to ignore — “Justice is not measured by statistics.” — Indeed, it is not — so why have mindless “quotas” that nobody working in or familiar with the system would have recommended? Why cite largely meaningless statistics about the number of individuals who would like to come here but never will?
But, there was also lots NOT to like:
Rosenstein mangles the oath of office; federal employees like Immigration Judges swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic — they DON’T swear to uphold or carry out the policies of the Attorney General (many of which have actually been found in violation of the law);
He creates a bogus “test” of “legal entry” as a demonstration of “fealty to our country;” there is no such equivalency or “second class citizenship.” — Although our system understandably often favors those who enter legally, there are a number of provisions that allow individuals who did not do so to eventually be granted citizenship, including those who are granted asylum; I am aware of no information that shows that manner of entry into the U.S. has any effect on one’s “fealty” or performance as a citizen; indeed, as a “native born U.S. citizen,” Rosenstein, like many of us, did nothing whatsoever personally to show his “fealty” or “earn” his citizenship — he was just lucky like we were;
Rosenstein keeps referring to “enforcement;” but Immigration Judges are NOT “law enforcement officers;” they are supposed to be fair and impartial quasi-judicial adjudicators; “enforcement” is the job of DHS and other parts of the DOJ (a glaring conflict of interest);
DHS officials are not the Immigration Judges’ “colleagues” to any greater extent than are lawyers in private practice or the individuals coming before the Immigration Courts; DHS is a “party” before the court and should be treated as such;
Rosenstein mis-states the history of our refugee laws. While the 1951 Convention was a response to World War II, the U.S. never became a party. We did sign the 1967 Protocol which was intended to update and expand the Convention and refugee law and move it beyond the immediate post-WWII aftermath. Our first codification of refugee and asylum law, the Refugee Act of 1980, was specifically intended to eliminate the types of ideological and geographical biases that had previously been a facet of our law; Rosenstein wrongfully implies that judges should interpret refugee law with a focus on a bygone era rather than considering refugee law, in the dynamic, protection-oriented manner it was intended, in the contexts of today’s world, where persecution based on gender is one of the major refugee producing factors;
Rosenstein neglects to mention the glaring failure of DOJ/EOIR to deliver on an even more important piece of technology for both the judges and the parties: e-filing which has been under development for nearly two decades without producing a functional product — a stunning piece of administrative incompetence by any standard and one that has helped contribute to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that plagues this dysfunctional system;
Rosenstein use of the term “generous” to describe legal immigration policy under Trump is outrageous; in a time of a growing worldwide refugee crisis, this Administration has cruelly and irrationally reduced refugee admissions to the lowest rate since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, while discouraging and placing bureaucratic roadblocks to discourage other forms of legal immigration, and intentionally misconstruing and perverting the law to make it more difficult for abused women from Central America to qualify;
Rosenstein fails to acknowledge that “forced migrants” are just that; they often enter illegally because they have little other choice, particularly when the Administration intentionally “slow walks” the applications of those who apply at legal ports of entry, forces those who have shown “credible fear” to remain in dangerous conditions in Mexico, and encourages smugglers to “turn in” individuals between ports of entry to avoid the Trump Administration’s short-sighted and arguably illegal policies;
Walls are not a symbol of strength as posited by Rosenstein; they are symbols of fear and loathing; in the USSR’s case it was directed at their own citizens; for the Trump Administration, walls are symbols of fear of Mexico, Mexicans, other Latin Americans, immigrants generally, and inferentially the real target — Hispanic citizens and all people of color in the U.S.;
Rosenstein’s final piece of jaw-dropping hypocrisy is to solicit solutions from the “new judges” to problems thrust on them by his Department’s malicious incompetence. Gimme a break, Rod! This Administration, like the last several, has made a point of ignoring any solutions generated from those who actually hear the cases in favor of those imposed to meet political goals that often undermine due process and judicial efficiency. Just ask the NAIJ how “receptive” the Trump DOJ has been to constructive suggestions. Ask almost any Immigration Judge about the idiotic and demeaning “case quotas” imposed on them over their objections. Moreover, this Administration has been “outed” in FOIA requests and court cases for ignoring well-supported fact-biased recommendations of career civil servants with expertise in various fields in favor of a preconceived racist, White Nationalist, restrictionist political agenda. Save your breath and ideas folks, for a future time after we get some much-needed “regime change” and the return of rational, unbiased, solution-oriented administration of justice instead of ideologues and their apologists like Rosenstein.
Rosenstein is on his way out the door at the DOJ. He’ll leave behind a mixed legacy. He’ll deserve great credit for protecting the Mueller investigation from Trump’s various attempts to interfere and compromise it. On the other hand, he drafted the infamous “pretext memo” which was part of the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to cover up Trump’s real real reason for firing FBI Director Jim Comey.
His failure to stand up for judicial independence, fairness, and due process for vulnerable individuals coming before our U.S. Immigration Courts and his continuing defense of the Administration’s indefensible and harmful White Nationalist immigration agenda will go down as one of his lesser moments.
America needs an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court where judges act fairly and impartially and owe allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, not the Attorney General or any other political official.
WASHINGTON — A girl in a pink bow stood proudly center stage Friday at the Justice Department, dwarfed by two statues and adults in black judicial robes behind her.
“We need more judges,” quipped James McHenry, director of the executive office of immigration review, which administers the country’s clogged immigration courts. “We’re now recruiting children too.”
Thus went the ceremony for officials, family and friends to welcome 31 new immigration judges, the second-largest class ever.
The Trump administration has hired more immigration judges in two years than was done in the previous seven years, according to Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein, who plans to retire soon.
But the hiring surge is unlikely to resolve the backlog of nearly 830,000 immigration cases that continues to grow.
Rosenstein said the new judges — on top of 414 currently serving — will help cut the vast logjam.
“Whether the immigration backlog continues to grow depends in large part on how immigration judges discharge their duties,” Rosenstein said.
It will also depend on money. McHenry notified immigration court staffers last week that budget shortfalls had blocked the hiring of additional judges and would delay recruitment of court support staff, according to BuzzFeed.
The caseload worsened significantly during the 35-day government shutdown over President Trump’s demands for a border wall. About 400 immigration judges were furloughed, and tens of thousands of hearings were canceled or delayed, exacerbating delays that now exceed two years on average.
Amid continued fighting with Congress over immigration and border security funding, the White House has requested money for 100 additional teams of immigration judges for 2020.
Migrants routinely wait years for a final determination of whether they can stay in the country, according to a Homeland Security inspector general’s report released Thursday.
In contrast to regular U.S. courts, immigration courts are not in the judicial branch of government. The judges are classified as government attorneys at the Justice Department and they ultimately report to Atty. Gen. William Barr.
The Trump administration has prioritized deporting thousands of migrants in detention and preventing their release into the United States while they await court hearings.
But because of limited detention space and record numbers of asylum seekers and Central American families adding to the backlog, Trump officials have released some detained migrants.
Some administration policies also have proved counterproductive to reducing the backlog, according to some current immigration judges, former officials — and McHenry.
Boosting enforcement efforts without increasing resources for immigration courts “could seriously compromise” their “ability to address [the] caseload and greatly exacerbate the current state of the backlog,” McHenry wrote to Rosenstein in October 2017.
In a plan that officials said would reduce the backlog, the Justice Department at the time instituted a quota for immigration judges and forced them to reopen closed cases. The caseload grew by more than 230,000 new cases last year, however.
McHenry sought to steel the new judges on Friday, saying they were entering into “the most significant and emotionally charged debate over immigration for some time.” He even read out a “pause for tense laughter.”
Rosenstein continues to play the “blame shame game.” Because the Trump Administration and the DOJ have given “built to fail” and counterproductive enforcement “gimmicks” priority over fixing the glaring due process problems in Immigration Court, and because today’s Immigration Judges have been forced to function more like “gerbils in a wheel” than independent judicial officials, the backlog is likely to continue to grow no matter what the individual Immigration Judges do. Indeed, they have been stripped by this Administration of not only their dignity as judges but also the last vestiges of control over their own dockets.
To his credit, McHenry actually tried to tell his handlers at DOJ that some of their misguided, enforcement-driven, restrictionist “backlog reduction” efforts would make the backlog even worse. He was ignored. And, the backlog has exponentially increased under this Administration — more judges in the hands of an Administration dedicated to “malicious incompetence” in the field of immigration has simply resulted in more backlog.
The one thing that judges can still control — impartial professional due process in each individual case coming before them — has been buried by this Administration’s dishonest rhetoric and “just pedal faster” invectives. But, any Immigration Judge who wants to succeed in real life terms, save lives, sleep at night, and be remembered by history as part of the solution not the problem will largely “tune out” the DOJ’s highly disingenuous babble about that which they can’t control and concentrate instead on guaranteeing fairness and due process in each individual case coming before her or him.
