🏴‍☠️👨‍⚖️OF COURSE, “COURTSIDERS” ALREADY KNOW THIS: Trump/GOP’s “Imperial Radical Right Judiciary” Is An Existential Threat To Our National Security!🤮 — “But [Judge Reed] O’Connor does not sit in a sane circuit; he sits in the 5th Circuit.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern in Apple News:

https://apple.news/AujRHyBwwShCnyl6hPF–zg

Trump Judges Are Now a Threat to America’s National Security

The 5th Circuit let a lone judge order the deployment of unvaccinated SEALs. High-ranking officers say the decision puts the world at risk.

MARCH 1 2022 6:55 PM

On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stunning decision transferring control over the Navy’s special operations forces from the commander-in-chief to a single federal judge in Texas. The 5th Circuit’s decision marks an astonishing infringement of President Joe Biden’s constitutional authority over the nation’s armed forces, directing him to follow the instructions of an unelected judge—rather than his own admirals—in deploying SEALs. High-ranking military personnel have testified under oath that this power grab constitutes a direct threat to the Navy’s operational abilities. As Russia invades Ukraine and declares a nuclear alert, Donald Trump’s judges are actively threatening America’s national security.

Like so many lawless cases in the 5th Circuit, this dispute began in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor. A notorious George W. Bush nominee, O’Connor is best known for attempting to abolish the Affordable Care Act in 2018, then getting reversed by a 7–2 vote at the Supreme Court last year. So when 35 Navy Special Warfare service members refused to comply with Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the armed forces, they brought their case to O’Connor. These service members—mostly SEALs, all represented by the far-right First Liberty Institute—claimed that their religious beliefs barred them from getting the shots. (Some said they heard “divine instruction not to receive the vaccine”; others asserted that the mRNA vaccines altered “the divine creation of their body by unnaturally inducing production of spike proteins.)

O’Connor predictably sided against Biden in January, granting a preliminary injunction of staggering scope on the grounds that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He awarded himself sweeping authority over the assignment of the plaintiffs, forcing the Navy to deploy them with operational units. When several plaintiffs were denied transfer to a duty station, they asked O’Connor to sanction the government for allegedly violating his order; he promptly ordered the Justice Department to explain why it should not be punished for failing to deploy these service members. (O’Connor has not yet decided whether to impose sanctions.)

As of today, this lone judge continues to oversee the plaintiffs’ assignments, forcing the Navy to train, equip, and deploy unvaccinated troops—with granular specificity as to their exact stations and duties.

Never before in the history of the United States has one district court judge exercised so much control over the armed forces. The Constitution assigns this authority to Congress and the president. There are certainly legal limits on executive discretion, including due process and constitutional safeguards against invidious discrimination. Right-wing lawyers have typically been loath to acknowledge any restrictions on the president’s war powers. Indeed, the conservative legal movement has endorsed a near-limitless vision of the commander-in-chief: Republican presidents, lawyers, and judges have argued that the Constitution allows the president to deploy troops without congressional approval, indefinitely detain enemy combatants, and exclude entire classes of immigrants from the country. But now it seems they draw the line at a simple vaccine requirement—even though all service members were already required to have at least nine vaccines upon enlistment.

Setting aside this hypocrisy, O’Connor’s order violated a fundamental principle of judicial restraint: Federal courts have long held that specific military assignments are never subject to judicial review. O’Connor appears to be the first judge ever to rule that, in fact, the courts can compel the armed forces to deploy a specific service member to a specific location to perform a specific duty. If his court were in a sane circuit, this unprecedented intrusion on the president’s power would be quashed almost instantly.

But O’Connor does not sit in a sane circuit; he sits in the 5th Circuit. This rogue court is now dominated by Trump judges, and it is breaking every rule to hobble Biden’s presidency. The government’s request for a stay landed in the laps of two infamous Trump judges, Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt Engelhardt, along with Edith Jones, an infamously partisan Ronald Reagan nominee.

In an unsigned opinion that bristled with hostility against the COVID-19 vaccine, this panel agreed that the mandate violated religious liberty. Noting that most service members are vaccinated, the panel declared that the Navy lacks the “paramount interests” necessary to overcome anti-vaxxers’ religious objections. It questioned the “efficacy” of the vaccine, noting that “the USS Milwaukee was ‘sidelined’ in December 2021 by a COVID-19 outbreak despite having a fully vaccinated crew.” (Unmentioned was the fact that the crew’s vaccination status prevented even more transmission and serious illness.) The panel then found that the Navy will not be “irreparably harmed” by O’Connor’s order. And it concluded that the “public interest” lies in keeping the plaintiffs unvaccinated.

. . . .

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

Alfred E. Neumann — Don’t expect this lackadaisical attitude from the next far-right GOP Attorney General to “own” the U.S. Immigration Courts — America’s “retail level” judiciary!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Read the full story at the link.

Don’t imagine that the right-wing activist Supremes’ majority will “reign in” the 5th Circuit. Nope, they are hard at work eradicating civil rights, voting rights, “Dred Scottifying” folks of color, and insuring the eventual environmental collapse of civilization as we have known it! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/us-supreme-court-rightwing-climate-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There isn’t anything that Biden and the Dems can do in the short run to change the scofflaw trajectory and composition of the 5th and the Supremes.

But, there is a powerful, nationwide, precedent-setting “Trump-oriented retail level ‘judiciary’” — with trial and appellate divisions and control over millions of lives and futures — that they have the power to immediately reform: The U.S. Immigration Courts “housed” within the DOJ’s EOIR!

Too bad for the rule of law and the future of democracy, not to mention the millions of individual human lives and futures at stake, that Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “up to” the job!

Progressives shouldn’t expect the same lack of will, defective focus, and clueless complacency the next time the radical GOP right takes over ownership of the DOJ! When it comes to the interrelated problems of immigration, human rights, civil rights, and immigration judicial reform in the 21st Century, fecklessness and underperformance are exclusive characteristics of Dem Administrations!👎🏽☹️🤯

🇺🇸 `Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-03-22

👎🏽⚖️☠️🤮 SUPREMES’ GOP MAJORITY TAKES A PAGE FROM BIA! — WANTING A PREDETERMINED RESULT, & LACKING A LEGAL BASIS, THE RIGHTY JUDGES SIMPLY FABRICATED ONE! — Mark Joseph Stern Reports For Slate On GOP High Court Judges’ Latest Disingenuous Assault On The Health & Safety Of Americans!

https://apple.news/Am7a_m_gxSpeJnAVpoMr-UA

The Supreme Court Had No Legal Reason to Block Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Rules

So it made one up.

JANUARY 13 2022 10:34 PM

The Supreme Court significantly hobbled—but did not obliterate—President Joe Biden’s efforts to protect Americans from COVID in the face of congressional inaction. By a 6–3 vote, the justices blocked his vaccinate-or-test mandate for large employers, accusing the administration of exceeding its authority. But by a 5–4 vote, the court upheld the administration’s vaccine mandate for health care workers, a decision that will compel more than 10 million people to get the jab. This split double header is a crushing defeat for Biden’s efforts to curb the pandemic by protecting American workers from catching COVID in the workplace. SCOTUS’ decision is not, however, a knockout blow to the administrative state. The Republican-appointed justices may yet enfeeble the executive branch’s ability to implement federal law. But a majority of them declined to seize on these cases as their vehicle.

By far the more important case, NFIB v. Department of Labor involves an “emergency temporary standard” issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This rule required employers with 100 or more workers to give their staff a choice: either get the COVID-19 vaccine or test weekly and mask in the office. The policy would have covered roughly 84 million people. To justify this mandate, OSHA drew on a federal law that allows the agency to protect employees from a “grave danger” resulting from “physically harmful” “agents” or “new hazards.” A coalition of red states filed a lawsuit to halt OSHA’s mandate, and by a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court took their side.

SCOTUS’ unsigned majority opinion rests on several dubious claims. The court declared that “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” So even though COVID is undoubtedly a “grave danger” and a “new hazard” to workers, this broad language is not enough, because it does not “plainly authorize” the mandate. Why not? The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of “grave danger” envisioned by the statute, and “falls outside OSHA’s sphere of expertise.” The majority also raised the “anti-novelty principle,” stating: “It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind.”

Notice something unusual about this analysis? The dissenters certainly did: It is utterly untethered to the plain text of the law, which obviously encompasses OSHA’s rule. In a rare joint dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan shredded this anti-textual approach to statutory interpretation. By dismantling OSHA’s authority over hazards found in and out of the workplace, they wrote, the majority imposed “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” This limit is not even supported by history: The agency has long regulated risks “beyond the workplace walls,” including fires, excessive noise, unsafe drinking water, and faulty electrical installations. And if the vaccinate-or-test policy is unprecedented, that is because it is in response to an unprecedented event: the deadliest pandemic in American history.

If that weren’t enough, OSHA put forth uncontested evidence that COVID–19 “poses special risks in most workplaces, across the country and across industries.” The virus “spreads more widely in workplaces than in other venues because more people spend more time together there,” the dissenters noted. OSHA “backed up its conclusions with hundreds of reports of workplace COVID– 19 outbreaks.” And it issued a rule designed to protect workers from these kinds of superspreader events. By “overturning that action,” the dissenters wrote, the majority “substitutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Immigration practitioners are used to result-oriented, anti-immigrant, racially, ethnically, and religiously driven results from Federal Judges. After all, fewer than four years ago a somewhat different Supremes’ right-wing majority “green-lighted” Trump’s bogus invidious, unprecedented “Muslim ban” by accepting clearly pretextual and contrived rationales that actually were refuted by the lower court records.

Here, with the facts, science, and history, as well as the statute supporting the Biden Administration’s reasonable program, the GOP Justices simply invented a reason to bar Biden from taking action to protect our health and safety. Talk about a double standard!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-13-21

🗽⚖️ “COURTSIDE” IN THE NEWS: BOTH NOLAN @ THE HILL & KEVIN @ IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG HIGHLIGHT MY BLISTERING ANALYSIS OF BIDEN’S FIRST-YEAR IMMIGRATION POLICIES! — Garland’s Monumental EOIR Fail Writ Large Among “Underreported News” Of 2021 — Mishandling Of Immigration Courts Creates Key “Enthusiasm Gap” Among Progressives Heading Into 2022 Midterms!

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/587347-has-biden-kept-his-immigration-promises

Biden promised to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. Has he done it?

Paul Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, doesn’t think so. He claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”

Predictably, nobody is pleased.

The problems Schmidt describes are not limited to the border and the treatment of asylum seekers. They are reflected in many of Biden’s other immigration measures too.

. . . .

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

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/12/has-biden-kept-his-immigration-promises.html

Nolan Rappaport for the Hill reports that Paul Schmidt, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals who now blogs at Immigration Courtside, does not think that President Biden has done enough on immigration. Schmidt claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”

KJ

December 27, 2021 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

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

Thanks, guys! As I have told both of you, I really appreciate the huge contributions you have made to informing the public about this all-important, yet often misunderstood or “mythologized,” issue!

Following up on my last thought, I urge everyone to view this recent clip from “Face the Nation,” posted by Kevin on ImmigrationProf, in which reporter Ed O’Keefe succinctly and cogently explains how immigration is the “most underreported issue of 2021.” It’s fundamental to everything from COVID, to the economy, to voting rights, to racial justice, to climate change, to our position in the world.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/12/the-most-neglected-story-of-2021-immigration.html

And, I say that the absolute dysfunctional mess that Garland has presided over in his broken and jaw-droppingly backlogged Immigration Courts is the most widely ignored, misunderstood, mishandled, and under-appreciated part of this under-reporting!

As an example of how even “mainstream liberal progressive pundits” get it wrong by not focusing on the spectacular adverse effects of Garland’s botched handling of the Immigration Courts, check out this article by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. https://apple.news/AvmEJc5V0RXa8hCgKICcTOA

Stern does a “victory lap” over Biden’s 40 great Article III judicial appointments to the lower Federal Courts, closing with the astounding claim that: “Democrats are finally playing hardball with the courts.”

In truth, Dems are only belatedly starting to do what the GOP has been doing over four decades: Get your guys in the positions where they make a difference for better (Dems, in theory) or worse (GOP in practice).

Appointing a diverse, talented, progressive group of 40 out of 870 Article III Judges is an important, necessary, and long, long overdue start; but, it’s not going to make a cosmic difference overnight!

By contrast, there are about 550 Immigration Judges, the majority appointed by GOP restrictionist AGs, many with mediocre to totally inadequate credentials for the job. And, it shows in the consistently substandard performance and mistake-riddled, haphazard “jurisprudence” emanating from Garland’s EOIR.

The main qualifications for a number of these pedestrian to totally outrageous appointments appears to be willingness to carry out former GOP AGs’ restrictionist, nativist policies, or at least to adhere to the DOJ’s enforcement-oriented agenda, while ignoring, distinguishing, or downplaying the due process rights of migrants!

This is “complimented” by an appellate branch (the BIA) with about two dozen judges hand-selected or retained for notorious anti-immigrant records or willingness to “go along to get along” with the wishes of DHS Enforcement. The BIA turns out some truly horrible, almost invariably regressive, “precedents.” A number are so lacking in substance and coherent analysis that they are unceremoniously “stomped” by the Article IIIs despite limitations on judicial review and the travesty of so-called “Chevron deference” that serves as a grotesque example of Supremes-created “judicial task avoidance” by the Article IIIs.

From an informed Dem progressive perspective, it’s an infuriating, ongoing, unmitigated disaster! Only one BIA appellate judge, recently appointed “progressive practical scholar” Judge Andrea Saenz, would appear on any expert’s list of the “best and brightest” progressive legal minds in the field.

Unlike Article III Judges, who are life-tenured, EOIR Judges serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Attorney General and can be replaced and reassigned, including to non-quasi-judicial attorney positions, “at will.”

Starting with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notorious “BIA Purge of ‘03,” GOP AGs haven’t hesitated to remove, transfer, “force out,” marginalize, demoralize, discourage from applying, or simply not select EOIR judges who stood for due process and immigrants’ rights in the face of nativist/restrictionist political agendas.

Yet, for eight years of the Obama Administration and now a year into the Biden Administration, Dem AGs have lacked the guts, awareness, and vision to fight back by “de-weaponizing” the regressive GOP-constructed Immigration Judiciary and recruiting replacements from among the “best and the brightest” among the “deep pool” of expert, intellectually fearless “progressive practical scholars.”

Not only that, but Dems have totally blown a unique opportunity to remake and establish the Immigration Judiciary not only as “America’s best judiciary” — a model for better Article IIIs — but also as a training ground for the diverse progressive judiciary of the future!

Even more significantly, tens of thousands of lives that should have been saved by an expert, due-process-oriented, racially sensitive judiciary have been, and continue to be, sacrificed on the alter of GOP nativism and Dem indifference to quality judging and human suffering in the Immigration Courts!

Compare the diverse, progressive backgrounds and qualifications of “Stern’s 40” with those on the totally underwhelming list of the most recent Garland “giveaways” of precious, life-determining Immigration Judge positions! See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1457171/download

Compare Garland’s regressive BIA with what could and should be if progressive practical scholars were “given their due:”https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽🇺🇸courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/

The progressive talent is definitely out there to change the trajectory of the Immigration Courts for the better! Garland’s failure to inspire, recruit, appoint, and tout the “best and brightest” in American law for his Immigration Courts is a horrible “whiff” with disturbing national and international implications!

Article III Federal Courts deal with the mundane as well as the profound. By contrast, lives and futures are on the line in every single Immigration Court case! Often effective judicial review of EOIR’s haphazard, widely inconsistent, unprincipled, and one-sided decisions is unavailable, either as a legal or practical matter. The exceptionally poor performance of the Immigration Courts that continues under Garland threatens the underpinnings of our entire justice system and American democracy!

Right now, Garland’s broken system has a largely self-created 1.5+ million case ever-expanding backlog! At a very conservative estimate of four family members, co-workers, employees, employers, students, co-religionists, neighbors, and community members whose lives are intertwined with each of those stuck in Garland’s hopelessly broken, biased, and deficient system, at least 6 million American lives hang in the balance — twisting in the wind among Garland’s “backlog on steroids!” Yet, amazingly, it’s “below the radar screen” of Stern and other leading progressive voices!

I doubt that any Federal Court in America, with the possible exception of the Supremes, holds as many human lives and futures in its hands. Not to mention that “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of the other in Immigration Court drifts over into the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Once you start viewing one group of humans as “less than persons” under the Constitution, it’s easy to add others to the “de-personification” process.

Yet, Garland cavalierly treats the Immigration Courts as just another mundane piece of his reeling bureaucratic mess at the DOJ. The long overdue and completely justified “housecleaning” at Trump’s anti-democracy insurrectionist regime seems far from Garland’s serenely detached mind!

For Pete’s sake, even ICE Special Agents understand the need to “rebrand” themselves by escaping the inept and disreputable ICE bureaucracy left over from Trump:

They say their affiliation with ICE’s immigration enforcement role is endangering their personal safety, stifling their partnerships with other agencies and scaring away crime victims, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/hsi-ice-split/2021/12/28/85dc6c66-61ad-11ec-8ce3-9454d0b46d42_story.html

But, Garland doesn’t understand the well-deserved toxic reputation of EOIR among legal experts? Gimme a break!

Garland also stands accountable for his spineless failure to insist on a dismantling of the bogus, illegal, immoral, and ultimately ineffectual Title 42 abomination at the Southern Border and an immediate return to the rule of law for asylum seekers.

Unless and until the Dems get serious about gutsy, radical progressive reforms of the Immigration Courts, the downward spiral of American justice will continue! Lives will be lost, and many of those who helped put Dems in power will be pissed off and “de-motivated” going into the midterms. That’s a really bad plan for Dems and for America’s future!

As Dems’ hopes of achieving meaningful Article III judicial reforms predictably are stymied, their inexcusable failure to reform and improve the Immigraton Courts that belong to them becomes a gargantuan, totally unnecessary “missed opportunity!” Talk about “unforced error!” See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/28/supreme-court-term-limits/

If Dems suffer an “enthusiasm gap” among their key progressive base going into the key 2022 midterms, they need look no further than Garland’s tone-deaf and inept failure to bring long overdue and readily achievable progressive personnel, procedural, management, and substantive reforms to his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That — not a false sense of achievement — should have been the “headliner” for Stern and other progressive voices!

“Expedience over excellence, enforcement over equity, gimmicks over innovation is good enough for Government work!” — The “vision” for Garland’s EOIR! But, progressive experts aren’t buying his “tunnel vision.”
PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-29-21

⚖️🤮👨🏻‍⚖️☠️ SUPREMELY BAD! — There’s a “problem with late-night emergency orders written as haikus on Post-it notes stuck to the front doors of the Supreme Court . . . !” — The return of “Dred Scottification” & covering for naked White Nationalist policies by our highest Court throws the entire U.S. justice system into chaos!

Grim Reaper — A robed GOP Justice, carrying a copy of Dred Scott and the tool of right-wing extremism, heads for secret meeting to take action against brown-skinned refugees!
Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

Dahlia Lithwick
Supreme Court Reporter
Slate
Wikimedia Commons — Public Domain

https://apple.news/ACG8I3-YvTh2RWP68SwTi2A

The Supreme Court Has Let a Lone Trump Judge Take Over Biden’s Foreign Policy

The six conservative justices blessed a rogue decision reviving Trump’s odious attack on refugees.

by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern

AUGUST 25 2021 8:47 PM

On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court issued one of the most radical orders in recent memory—and it did it in three sentences, unsigned. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative justices attacked the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy (a principle it had vehemently preserved throughout the Trump presidency) by compelling the Biden administration to revive Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required all asylum-seekers who arrive at the Southern border—including many fleeing violence in Central America—to wait for their U.S. immigration hearings in Mexico. This 2019 policy, the product of extensive negotiations between the Trump administration and the Mexican government, has been suspended for about 17 months. On Aug. 13, however, a single federal judge issued a nationwide injunction ordering the government to reinstate the long-dormant program immediately. Late Tuesday, the Supreme Court blessed this unprecedented hostile takeover of the executive’s immigration policies without bothering to explain how or why.

The implications of Tuesday’s decision are profoundly disturbing. . . .

Perhaps the most perverse aspect of the litigation over “Remain in Mexico”—also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP—is that the policy itself is illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act does allow the government to return a narrow class of migrants to “contiguous territory” while they await hearings. But, as a federal appeals court explained in 2020, the law does not allow the government to send the vast majority of asylum-seekers back to Mexico to await hearings. Doing so violates the United States’ treaty obligations as implemented in the INA, which bar the government from sending refugees back to countries where they fear persecution.

. . . .

As we have suggested in the recent past, the problem with late-night emergency orders written as haikus on Post-it notes stuck to the front doors of the Supreme Court isn’t just that the parties must scramble, without guidance, to discern what it is the court wants them to do. In this case, perhaps tens of thousands of desperate asylum-seekers and their families have absolutely no clue as to what the law is now and why. We have no idea what even constitutes an emergency, or which parties have standing, or what the legal reasoning might be.

Not very long ago, the high court used its shadow docket to spank what it deemed runaway district court judges arrogating power to set immigration policy in violation of Trump’s orders. Now, the same shadow docket is being used to hand federal immigration powers to runaway district court judges, with no rule or principle set forth beyond the fact that Biden should just lose, because they say so.

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

Under Roberts, the Supremes are looking more and more like the deadly EOIR Star Chambers/Clown Courts!☠️⚰️🤡 Shamefully, the “Roberts Six” have “revived” the “essence” of perhaps the worst Supremes’ decision in U.S. history, Dred Scott, and gotten away with applying it to people of color in the 21st Century!

They have elevated utter BS and fabricated “injuries” manufactured in bad faith by vile right wing GOP State AGs over the human rights, lives, and human dignity of refugees seeking asylum! In particular, they have targeted bown-skinned women, children, and families legally seeking refuge! This is progress? Seems like the definition of “judicial cowardice” to me!

What kind of “crimes against humanity” are the “GOP 6” complicit in? Try refugees “kidnapped, raped and even killed as a direct result of this policy. They came to our doorstep with a belief in America — and our government sent them into danger.” https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-24/supreme-court-biden-ending-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy?utm_id=36127&sfmc_id=2413253

Meanwhile Garland inexcusably has failed to reform his Immigration Courts by replacing unqualified Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges selected by his predecessors under highly questionable procedures with well-qualified progressive judges who are experts in due process and human rights.

Building a progressive Immigration Judiciary at EOIR is absolutely necessary to developing the legal skills to hold the anti-American far right at bay and eventually creating a better Article III Judiciary that will actually stand up for due process and equal justice for all persons in America. Something the “Roberts 6” have scandalously and spinelessly failed to do!🤮👎🏽

Better Judges for better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

🇺🇸HEADS ROLL AS PRESIDENT BIDEN MOVES QUICKLY TO REMOVE VILE “RUMP KAKISTOCRACY!” —- Mark Joseph Stern Reports For Slate!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/biden-michael-pack-kathleen-kraninger-peter-robb.html

Many of Donald Trump’s most notorious appointees, including his cabinet secretaries, resigned shortly before Joe Biden took office. But myriad officials whom Trump installed in the executive branch remained in spite of their antagonism toward the new president’s agenda. Hours into his presidency, Biden has already ousted three of his predecessors’ most unqualified and corrupt appointees. This clean break sends a clear message that Biden will not tolerate hostile Trump holdovers in his administration, including those with time remaining in their terms.

. . . .

**********

Read Mark’s full article at the link. Only the beginning!

Lots of work to do! So many dangerous clowns 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️to remove 🧹🪠or reassign to places where they can’t inflict any more harm on our democracy and our institutions.

Hope that Judge Garland and Vanita Gupta are making their list now, starting with the EOIR Clown Show,🤡 but certainly not ending there. It’s clear that the Biden program of immigration reform, refugee reform, racial justice, environmental salvation, conquering COVID, ending the “Muslim ban,” and social justice, to name just a few priorities, will require active support and engagement from the DOJ.

That’s not going to be possible without a top to bottom housecleaning 🧹🪠🚽🧻at a broken bureaucracy that has been little more than a tool for defending and providing cover for corruption and carrying out an obscene White Nationalist racist agenda over the past four years. These weren’t just “honest policy differences.” They involved an unconstitutional, invidiously-motivated, dishonest, White Nationalist driven political agenda developed and openly advocated by the likes of notorious neo-Nazi bigot Stephen Miller and his accomplices at the DOJ.

Those who willingly carried out and defended (often by engaging in unethical, dilatory defenses or “wear ‘em down” litigation “strategies”) can’t be trusted to restore justice at Justice. Immediately dismantling the Supreme Court’s notorious “shadow docket” — encouraged and pushed by unethical former Solicitor General Noel Francisco on all too willing GOP Justices for the purpose of pushing a dishonest and damaging White Nationalist agenda — should also be a priority!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! Clean up the mess @ Justice!

PWS

01-21-20

👩‍⚖️⚖️ONE MEAN☠️🤮⚰️ MOTHER: Soon-To-Be Justice Barrett’s Immigration Jurisprudence Shows Cruelty, Legal Ignorance, Lack Of Empathy For The Vulnerable Humans Whose Lives Are At Stake In An Unconstitutional System Rigged Against Them!

Judge Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court Nominee by Bob Englehart, PoliticalCartoons.com
Published under license

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/democrats-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-supreme-court-chat.html

Dahlia Lithwick & Mark Joseph Stern in Slate:

. . . .

Dahlia: I wonder what you thought of Barrett’s statement, about how she reads each of her opinions through the eyes of the losing party. As you have written, the losing party tends to be the prisoners, the Black worker, the teen seeking abortion, the asylum seeker. It reminded me of Justice Samuel Alito testifying at his hearings about his great solicitude for immigrants.

Mark: Barrett’s opening statement made me think about one of her worst decisions (so far), in which she approved the deportation of an asylum seeker because there were small, trivial variations in his account of persecution. Over a dissent, Barrett said, yep, this asylum seeker must be sent home to be tortured and murdered because tiny details in his story changed over time. Would a judge who views the case through the eyes of the asylum seeker really dismiss his claims so cavalierly? I doubt it.

. . . .

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

Read the complete dialogue at the link.

So much for intellectual honesty! It also shows Barrett’s fundamental lack of experience and legal understanding of what Immigration “Courts” really are and how they have been politicized and weaponized against asylum seekers by “judges” who report to overtly biased and xenophobic politicos in the Executive Branch. Just how would this “naked farce” satisfy any rudimentary concept of Due Process? Clearly it doesn’t. And just as clearly, intentionally tone-deaf judges like Barrett don’t care! They lack the guts, relevant experience representing migrants, and the intellectual presence to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of “the other.”

How would YOU like to be sentenced to torture and/or death based on trivial inconsistencies found by an Immigration “Judge” working directly for the Attorney General and his regime in a badly flawed assembly line process designed to achieve political policy objectives, not justice?

Also, did anyone else pick up the facial absurdity of Barrett’s disingenuous claim to be “apolitical” while pledging allegiance to GOP “superhero” the late Justice Antonin Scalia, probably the most overtly “political Justice” of modern times?

Bottom Line: Once you’re out of the womb, this is one mother you don’t want on your case!🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️

Better Judges For A Better America! Judge/Justice Barrett is part of the problem, not the solution! The best way to insure that she is among the last, far-right, anti-democracy, inhumane judges given life tenure on the Supremes or anywhere else, vote ‘em out, vote ‘em out! Then, we’ll discover the “true meaning” of Barrett’s “I’m not there to make policy nonsense!” (Indeed, I would submit that the sole reason for her appointment was the GOP’s belief and expectation that she will reliably elevate disingenuous right-wing policies, biases, and prejudices over the Constitutional, individual, and human rights of individuals and that she will be a steadfast opponent of Constitutionally-required equal justice under law.)

Justice for the George Floyds, Breonna Taylors, dehumanized dead asylum seekers, and wrongfully imprisoned migrant kids of the world (e.g., the end of unconstitutional “Baby Jails”) will require a different type of “Justice” than Amy Coney Barrett in the future! Far from being truly “independent” and “apolitical,” Barrett is likely to be the perfect representative of the warped man who appointed her and his anti-democracy party. And, that’s likely to cause problems for all Americans of good will far into the future!

PWS

10-13-20

INSULT TO INJURY:🤮☠️👎🏻 Trump To Tap Unqualified, Cruel, Righty Zealot To Replace RBG? — One Leading Candidate “The Anti-RBG” — “Notorious” For Her Commitment To Inequality & Inhumanity, Out To Trash RBG’s Legacy Of Humanity & Equal Justice! — “Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html

Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate:

. . . .

The consensus among legal and political analysts is that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump placed on a federal appeals court in 2017, is the leading candidate to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Barrett gained fame during her confirmation hearing after Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made inappropriate comments about the judge’s devout Catholic faith. She is a hardcore conservative, but that description doesn’t quite capture how radically her jurisprudence differs from Ginsburg’s. The justice viewed the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Mark’s article at the link.

Judge Barrett sounds like someone who could have trained in anti-humanitarian, anti-social, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant judging by Billy the Bigot on the BIA. She certainly fits the model of an unqualified far right attivist.

And what of the other leading contender, Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit. In addition to being a reliable right-wing zealot (she voted to uphold the GOP anti-democracy scheme to overrule the people of Florida and disenfranchise former convicts), she is a Cuban American from Florida, a state where Trump and Biden are running neck and neck. Anybody who thinks today’s Court isn’t “politicized” has been living under a rock!

Daniel Goldberg, Legal Director of the Alliance for Justice (“AFJ”) tells us about everything we need to know about Lagoa:

Daniel Goldberg, legal director of the liberal Alliance for Justice, was critical of Lagoa’s record, saying she is a judge “who has showed contempt for our democracy.” Goldberg said he has “no doubt that she will meet Donald Trump’s litmus test” for a Supreme Court nominee and support his pledge to overturn Roe and the Affordable Care Act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barbara-lagoa-supreme-court/2020/09/20/364d73e4-fb50-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html

If you don’t want more unqualified judges with cruel, perverted, and unjust visions of America, and contempt for democracy and the humanity of “the other” in society to be deciding your future and the future of your children and grandchildren, then you had better get out the vote for Biden. Otherwise, your future is likely to look like America’s Jim Crow past!

PWS

09-21-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮CONTEMPT FOR COURTS = CONTEMPT FOR AMERICA! — As Trump Disses Court Orders On DACA It’s Clear That Saying “Nobody Is Above The Law” Has Little To Do With Reality — Barr, Wolf, Miller, & Trump Remain Free To Abuse, While Their Victims Suffer & Their Lawyers Find That Even Winning Means Losing When A Supposedly Independent Judiciary Won’t Stand Up To A Lawless Executive & His Henchpeople!

https://apple.news/AJNODllmJS-meicPYuRkl-Q

Mark Joseph Stern Reports in Slate:

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it will continue to defy a federal court order compelling the full restoration of DACA, the Obama-era program that allows 700,000 immigrants to live and work in the United States legally. By doing so, the administration has chosen to flout a decision by the Supreme Court, effectively rejecting the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is.

Donald Trump first attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September 2017, a move that would’ve stripped its beneficiaries of work permits and subjected them to deportation. But his administration continually cut corners, failing to explain the basis for its decision and refusing to consider the impact of DACA repeal on immigrants, their communities, and their employers (including the U.S. Army). This June, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” under federal law and therefore “set aside” DACA repeal.

To implement that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm compelled the administration to restore DACA to its pre-repeal condition on July 17. Grimm’s order required the Department of Homeland Security to let DACA beneficiaries renew their status for two years, accept new applicants, and restore “advance parole,” which permits travel outside the country. But DHS did not do that. Instead, the agency maintained that it would reject new DACA applicants. It also declined to accept DACA renewals or reinstate advance parole.

At a hearing Friday, Grimm tore into Justice Department attorneys for flouting his order. The government’s actions, he explained, created “a feeling and a belief that the agency is disregarding binding decisions” from the Supreme Court. DOJ attorneys insisted that DACA applications were merely “on hold,” or “placed into a bucket,” while the administration decided how to proceed. But, as Grimm retorted, “it is a distinction without a difference to say that this application has not been denied, it has been received and it has been put in a bucket.” The judge once again directed DHS to comply with the law by accepting new applicants and processing renewals.

Incredibly, the agency has decided to disobey this order, as well. On Tuesday, acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf declared that it would not accept new applications and would only grant one-year extensions to current beneficiaries “on a case by case basis.” This tactic will make it easier for Trump to deport DACA beneficiaries if he wins reelection, since their status will expire sooner. The agency will also deny advance parole “absent exceptional circumstances.” This new policy is nothing less than brazen defiance of a federal court ruling. Grimm, and the Supreme Court itself, ordered DACA’s full resuscitation, which requires the acceptance of new applicants and the conferral of two-year renewals. There is simply no legal basis for DHS’s zombie version of the program.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Equal justice for all and the easing of racial tensions in America will not happen until we get an Executive, Legislators, and Judges with the courage and integrity to make it happen. We’re a long way from that now.

The timid approach of the Legislative and Judicial Branches to Trump’s and his cronies’ almost daily abuses of our legal system have sent the message that the law is largely meaningless in the age of Trump, except if you are a person of color, asylum seeker, immigrant, or, perish the thought, all three, in which case the law only applies to you when the effects are adverse to your interests but not to protect you. On the other hand, if you are a Trump official or a DOJ lawyer, compliance with the law is at most a suggestion and ignoring it has few meaningful consequences.

The Trump regime has exposed the deep flaws and weaknesses in our democratic institutions. We need better public officials in all three branches of the Government. Better judges will take awhile because of life tenure. But, a better Executive, Legislature, and public servants can be achieved with a “big push” in November to expel the malicious incompetents at all levels. And, that will set the stage for eventually achieving a better Federal Judiciary that will stand up to tyranny and lawlessness and show that “nobody is above the law” is more than just a feckless catchphrase.

Due Process Forever! A Feckless Legislature & Federal Judiciary, Never!

PWS

07-29-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻AMERICAN INJUSTICE: A COURT SUPREMELY WRONG FOR OUR TIME: Justices Who Oppose Equal Justice For All, View Refugees & Asylum Seekers As Subhuman, Are Incapable Of Consistent Moral Leadership, & Willingly Participate In & Hollowly Attempt To Justify The Bullying Of “The Other” Are Fueling America’s Race To The Bottom Under Trump! — “They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-asylum-deportations-thuraissigiam.html

From Slate:

JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court Doesn’t See Asylum-Seekers as People — One week after saving DACA, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK and MARK JOSEPH STERN

JUNE 25, 20203:35 PM

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court saved more than 700,000 immigrants from the Trump administration’s nativist buzz saw. The court ensured that these immigrants, who were brought to the United States by their undocumented parents as children, would continue to be protected by an Obama administration policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, sparing them from deportation to countries many could not even remember. The court split 5–4, with Chief Justice John Roberts throwing his lot in with the liberals to find that Donald Trump’s rescission of DACA had been unlawful—largely because it had been carelessly effectuated, defended pretextually, but also because hundreds of thousands of young people had altered their lives in reliance on the promise that they would be immune from deportation.

In a key section of the majority opinion, Roberts highlighted the humanity of these young undocumented people, as was the hopes and dreams of their families: “Since 2012, DACA recipients have enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on DACA, Roberts wrote, quoting from briefs in the case. “The consequences of the rescission … would ‘radiate outward’ to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.-citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.” The chief justice evinced frustration that the Trump administration seemingly took none of those very human interests into account.

One week later, on Thursday morning, the high court proved that its sympathies for immigrants seeking better lives are limited. In a 7–2 ruling, the justices approved the Trump administration’s draconian interpretation of a federal law that limits courts’ ability to review deportation orders. This time around, the court did not note immigrants’ contributions to the nation or acknowledge their humanity in any way. Having last week treated one class of immigrants like actual people, the court on Thursday pivoted back to callous cruelty. All of the chief justice’s kind words about DACA recipients seemingly do not apply to immigrants who—according to the executive branch—do not deserve asylum.

Thursday’s case, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, involves an asylum-seeker from Sri Lanka named Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam who faces likely death if he is deported because he is Tamil. Thuraissigiam was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol while trying to cross at the southern border in 2017. After an asylum officer and immigration judge rejected his claims, Thuraissigiam was slated for “expedited removal.” Federal law bars courts from reviewing that deportation order. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional as applied to Thuraissigiam under the Constitution’s suspension clause, which limits the government’s ability to restrict habeas corpus—the centuries-old right to contest detention before a judge.

At the Trump administration’s request, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit, with Justice Samuel Alito writing a maximalist majority opinion for the five conservatives and Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg proffering a narrower concurrence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a lengthy, vivid dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan that accused the majority of flouting more than a century of precedent and “purg[ing] an entire class of legal challenges to executive detention.” (In his own opinion, Alito dismissed Sotomayor’s criticisms as mere “rhetoric.”)

This outcome strips due process from immigrants seeking asylum, who now have even fewer rights to a fair adjudicatory process under an expedited system that already afforded them minimal protections. It will also embolden the Trump administration to speed up deportations for thousands of people with no judicial oversight. Under this now court-approved system, immigrants fleeing their home country must undergo a “credible fear” interview, at which they must explain to a federal officer why they qualify for asylum. (The Trump administration has allowed Customs and Border Protection agents—not trained asylum officers—to conduct credible fear interviews.) If the officer finds no “credible fear of persecution,” their supervisor reviews the determination, as does an immigration judge (who is not a traditional judge but rather an employee of the executive branch appointed by the attorney general). If these individuals find no credible fear, the immigrant is thrown into “expedited removal”—that is, swiftly deported in a matter of weeks. They may not contest the government’s “credible fear” determination before a federal court. It is this extreme rule that Thuraissigiam challenged as a violation of habeas corpus and due process.

Alito breezily dismissed Thuraissigiam’s individual claims by stripping a broad swath of constitutional rights from unauthorized immigrants. First, he declared that habeas corpus does not protect an immigrant’s ability to fight illegal deportation orders. Sotomayor fiercely contested this claim, citing an “entrenched line of cases” demonstrating that habeas has long protected the right of individuals—including immigrants—to challenge illegal executive actions in court. Second, Alito held that unauthorized immigrants who are already physically present in the United States have not actually “entered the country.” Thus, they have no due process right to challenge the government’s asylum determination. Sotomayor noted that this holding departs from more than a century of precedent by imposing distinctions drawn by modern immigration laws on the ancient guarantee of due process.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them.

The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him. Thuraissigiam faced brutal persecution in Sri Lanka, a fact Alito did not seem to understand at oral arguments. Various officials in the executive branch shrugged off that persecution. Thuraissigiam just wants an opportunity to prove to a federal judge that these officials violated the law by denying his asylum claim. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, he cannot. Nor can the many immigrants thrown into expedited removal by the Trump administration, which has used the process as a tool to speed up deportations across the country. Just two days ago, a federal appeals court cleared the way for the government to expand expedited removal beyond immigrants intercepted near the border to those apprehended anywhere in the nation. The administration has shown little interest in carefully considering whom it’s deporting; now many of those decisions will be rubber-stamped by executive officers and left unscrutinized by the federal judiciary.

Alito not only waved away these galling consequences; he seemed to laugh at them. Not for a moment does he appear to believe that asylum-seekers may be genuinely in fear for their lives. Among the many bon mots dropped by Alito in his opinion, he wrote: “While [Thuraissigiam] does not claim an entitlement to release, the Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka.” Given that Thuraissigiam claims he will likely be tortured to death if he is sent back to Sri Lanka, it’s not clear that line means what he thinks it does. Throughout the opinion Alito refers to Thuraissigiam as either “alien” or “respondent” and appears simply incapable of imagining that his claims are truthful.

RECENTLY IN JURISPRUDENCE

Five DACA Recipients on What’s Next

The People Arrested for Protesting Police Are in Danger

America Is Closed

DOJ Ethics Office Says Bill Barr Can Investigate Political Enemies Under False Pretext

It’s easy to miss the massive erosion of asylum-seekers’ rights in the victory last week around the triumph of DACA. But in some ways, it’s the most American outcome in the world to view DACA beneficiaries as more human because they have gone to school here and birthed children here, while scoffing at asylum-seekers, who, as part of a lengthy tradition under both constitutional and international law, simply ask the U.S. government to save their lives. Roberts, who seemed so attuned to the hardships of DACA recipients, joined Alito’s merciless opinion in full; in fact, the chief justice assigned the opinion to Alito, who has become the court’s staunchest crusader against immigrants’ rights.

The court’s split shows that a majority of justices think immigrants like Thuraissigiam are not the productive young people of the DACA case, with financial and familial ties to all that makes America great, but rather faceless masses cynically manipulating America’s generous asylum policy and overwhelming its immigration system. They believe these people do not deserve an iota of sympathy, let alone due process. That is already how many border agents viewed these immigrants: not as humans with rights, but as fraudulent parasites. The Supreme Court has now transformed that vision into law—and, in the process, allowed the executive to send more persecuted people to their deaths without even a meaningful day in court.

Support our independent journalism

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

Imposing death sentences without fair hearings, or indeed any real hearings at all, is bad stuff. And, Justices who justify this behavior should not be on the bench at all.

Sadly, that applies just as much to the two so-called “liberal icons” who voted with Alito and four other sneering colleagues who seemed to actually glory in being able to dehumanize another soul with the audacity to fight for his life. Frankly, this stuff is right out of the Third Reich. Read a few of the German Judiciary’s opinions of the time and see how quickly, easily, naturally, and often happily Reich jurists “justified the unjustifiable and the unthinkable.” I have no doubt that Sam Alito and some of his colleagues would have fit right in. How has American Justice gotten to this incredible “low point.”

I don’t know exactly what we can do about life-tenured judges who are unqualified for their jobs. Life tenure is there for a reason — to insure judicial independence overall, even in particular instances like this where it clearly does no such thing. And, with 200+ largely unqualified Trump appointees now on the Federal Bench, essentially “young deadwood,” the problem will get worse before it gets better.

The first step is to replace Trump and oust the GOP from the Senate. Then, methodically appoint only judges committed to equal justice for all, willing to stand up against abuses of justice by both the Executive and the Congress, and whose life experiences and legal work show an unswerving commitment to human rights and the rights of migrants to be treated as persons (fellow humans) under law.

It’s a national disgrace that with immigration and human rights the major issues clogging today’s Federal Courts, few, if any, Federal Judges have any experience representing asylum seekers in the Star Chambers known as “Immigration Courts” nor have they personally experienced the type of dehumanization, racism, torture, grotesque abuses, and unnecessary cruelty that they so unnecessarily, uncourageously, and glibly inflict on migrants and asylum seekers who indeed are the most vulnerable among us. If immigration and human rights are the pivotal issues of American justice, then we need to get Justices and judges on the bench who understand what they are doing and the dire human consequences of their actions (or inactions).

The situation of today’s asylum seekers of color is not much different from that of others Americans of color whose legal and Constitutional rights were denied, and whose humanity was intentionally degraded, by a corrupt judiciary and a legal system that intentionally failed to make Constitutonal equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel fiction .

A nation that doesn’t demand better judges will never rise above its own mistakes and failures. And a Federal Judiciary that so obviously and intentionally lacks diversity and humanity can never properly serve the national interest.

Ditch the clueless, largely white, male “dudocracy” with their Ivy League degrees and not much else to offer. Appoint judges schooled in real life, who know what the law means in human terms and will use it to solve, rather than aggravate, inflame, or avoid, human problems! There are tons of such lawyers out there. We all know them. We need them to move from the “bullpen” to the Federal Benches, before it’s too late for everyone in America!

Folks, what we have here is “judicially-approved murder without trial.” It could also be called “extrajudicial killing.” Ugly, but brutally true! “The upshot of the decision will mean almost certain death for Thuraissigiam and others like him.” We should understand what’s happening, even if seven disingenuous and unqualified members of our highest court claim not to know or care what they are doing and refuse to acknowledge the real life consequences of their deep, dark, and disturbing intellectual corruption and their studied lack of human compassion, empathy, and decency.

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

PWS

06-28-20

🏴‍☠️☠️KAKISTOCRACY W/ CRUELTY: TRUMP PROMISES RENEWED RACIST ASSAULT ON DREAMERS — Apparently Inspired By Supremes’ Clearly Erroneous Finding That Original Racist Assault Wasn’t Racist At All! — Worst Prez in U.S. History Shows Once Again That There’s No End To His Creepy Racist Cruelty, Stupidity, & Willingness to Waste Taxpayers’ Money!

Astrid Galvin — Astrid Galvan
AP Journalist

https://apple.news/A8axfX18tSJerFjEt643BbA

Astrid Galvin and Deb Riechmann report for AP:

Undeterred by this week’s Supreme Court ruling, President Donald Trump said Friday he will renew his effort to end legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Trump denounced the high court’s ruling that the administration improperly ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2017. Splitting with Trump and judicial conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in the 5-4 vote Thursday.

Through executive action, Trump could still take away the ability for 650,000 young immigrants to live and work legally in the United States. But with no legislative answer in Congress in sight, uncertainty continues for many immigrants who know of no other home except America.

In a tweet Friday morning, Trump said, “The Supreme Court asked us to resubmit on DACA, nothing was lost or won. They “punted”, much like in a football game (where hopefully they would stand for our great American Flag). We will be submitting enhanced papers shortly.”

Ken Cuccinelli, acting head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said Friday that the administration was starting over. “We’re going to move as quickly as we can to put options in front of the president,” but those are executive branch options, he told “Fox & Friends.”

“That still leaves open the appropriate solution which the Supreme Court mentioned and that is that Congress step up to the plate,” he said.

Cuccinelli said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., made some positive comments in that direction on Thursday so the administration thinks it’s possible for a constructive conversation with Congress. But experts say there isn’t enough time to knock down the 8-year-old program before the November election and doubt the government would try because DACA is popular with voters.

Trump’s tweet on Friday was less confrontational than the one on Thursday when he slammed the high court ruling. “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.” He apparently was referring to DACA and an earlier ruling this week where the court said it’s illegal to fire people because they are gay or transgender.

Activists are vowing to keep fighting for a long-term solution for young immigrants whose parents brought them to the United States when they were children. They not only face a White House that’s prioritized immigration restrictions but a divided Congress that is not expected to pass legislation giving them a path to citizenship anytime soon.

The court decision still elicited surprise, joy and some apprehension from immigrants and advocates who know it’s only a temporary solution.

“This is a huge victory for us,” Diana Rodriguez, a 22-year-old DACA recipient, said through tears.

Rodriguez, who works with the New York Immigration Coalition, said she hasn’t been to Mexico since she was brought to the U.S. at age 2. The ruling means young immigrantscan keep working, providing for their families and making “a difference in this country,” she said.

But the work isn’t over, Rodriguez said: “We can’t stop right now, we have to continue fighting.”

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, appeared satisfied to let the court’s decision stand as the law of the land for now.

While Republicans protested that now, if ever, was the time for Congress to clarify the immigration system, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it clear that Democrats were done with their legislation before the summer break and had little interest in meeting GOP demands to fund Trump’s long-promised border wall as part of any comprehensive immigration overhaul.

“There isn’t anybody in the immigration community that wants us to trade a wall for immigration,” she said.

Pelosi was reminded that Trump has said he wants immigration reform. “We’ll see,” she said, noting how few days remain on the legislative calendar. “I don’t know what the president meant — maybe he doesn’t either.”

Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden said that if elected, he would send lawmakers proposed legislation on his first day in office to make DACA protections permanent.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Right now, Mark Joseph Stern’s prediction @ Slate that the Supremes’ failure to call out the Trump Administrations’s unconstitutional racial bias will come back to haunt America is looking pretty accurate. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/john-roberts-daca-racist-policies-equal-protection.html

There will be no racial reconciliation, equality, and equilibrium in the U.S., nor will our nation reach its full potential, until Trump and the GOP are permanently expelled from power the power they have so grotesquely and dishonestly abused.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

06-19-20

1ST CIR. — EOIR’S SCOFFLAW “HASTE MAKES WASTE” DENIALS OF COUNSEL UNDER BARR WILL BUILD BACKLOG — Hernandez-Lara v. Barr

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Right to Counsel: Hernandez Lara v. Barr

Hernandez Lara v. Barr

“Hernandez petitions for review on multiple grounds, but we need decide only one. Concluding that the IJ denied Hernandez her statutory right to be represented by the counsel of her choice, we grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”

[Hats way off to Sang Yeob Kim and Eloa J. Celedon, with whom Harvey Kaplan, Gilles Bissonnette, Henry Klementowicz, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, and Celedon Law were on brief, for petitioner; Deirdre M. Giblin, Iris Gomez, and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute on brief for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, American Immigration Lawyers Association New England Chapter, Boston College Law School Immigration Clinic, Boston University Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Central West Justice Center, DeNovo Center for Justice and Healing, Greater Boston Legal Services, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts, MetroWest Legal Services, The Northeast Justice Center, Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, and University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Immigration Law Clinic, amici curiae!]

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

Read the full decision and you will see how under Barr’s White Nationalist “leadership,” the EOIR ignores not only constitutionally required due process, the statutory right to counsel, but also prior BIA precedent to screw (largely Latino) asylum seekers. The First Circuit recognizes the correct standards. But, I’ll wager they aren’t being applied in most of the unrepresented cases now being railroaded through the Immigration Courts. Nobody in charge is doing anything to stop the systemic, invidiously racially motivated unfairness.

We’re still a long way from enforcing the Constitution and eliminating unconstitutional racism, including specifically the Government’s vile attacks on Latino and other asylum applicants.

While thankfully Chief Justice Roberts saved lives and futures today, he and seven of his colleagues also ignored the facts to endorse the Trump regime’s institutional racism targeting Latinos with various assaults on immigration laws, due process, and human decency. His protestations to the contrary as he and his colleagues brushed off the obvious Equal Protection violations that would have been proved fail the “straight face test.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/john-roberts-daca-racist-policies-equal-protection.html.

Indeed, that Roberts found that the Administration acted without rational explanations as required by the APA in and of itself basically shows that there were “other motivations” for the actions. I’m not sure the “prime movers” behind the “Screw Dreamers” policy even know what the APA is. Sessions’s “legal analysis” that was nothing of the sort — as observed by some lower courts — could have been written by a sixth grader.

Sadly, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the intellectual honesty and courage to speak truth on the continuing racism of Trump and the GOP and how it is being enabled by her colleagues on the Supremes.

Whatever progress members of the the public might think they are making on achieving racial justice isn’t reflected in the continuing insultingly intellectually dishonest actions of many of those who lead and control our Government. They obviously believe that with a few cosmetic (at best) changes this moment will pass, as have other efforts to make the Constitution a reality for all in America.

Then they can resume the same abuses and disingenuous claims that institutional racism no longer exists in a system where it is deeply and intentionally ingrained. But, the folks who are victimized by it might continue to differ with this bogus view. Since, as we have recently learned, they are often the ones who have and continue to prop up our society, that’s going to be a long-term problem for future generations.

We’ll never get to equality without regime change. Nor will be get to a better Federal Judiciary who will make the Constitutional guarantee of elimination of racial injustice a priority and a reality without an Executive, a Senate, and more judges who really believe in it. Until then, those who believe in racial justice will have to continue the battle in the trenches. Denial of the reality of racism in America won’t change it, no matter what the majority of the Supremes might claim to think.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-18-20

SUPREMELY PARTISAN: “J.R. Five” Aids GOP Voter Suppression In Wisconsin As RBG & “Gang of Four” Lash Out In Dissent!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/supreme-court-wisconsin-absentee-ballots.html

Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate:

On Monday, by a 5–4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court approved one of the most brazen acts of voter suppression in modern history. The court will nullify the votes of citizens who mailed in their ballots late—not because they forgot, but because they did not receive ballots until after Election Day due to the coronavirus pandemic. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, the court’s order “will result in massive disenfranchisement.” The conservative majority claimed that its decision would help protect “the integrity of the election process.” In reality, it calls into question the legitimacy of the election itself.

Wisconsin has long been scheduled to hold an election on April 7. There are more than 3,800 seats on the ballot, and a crucial state Supreme Court race. But the state’s ability to conduct in-person voting is imperiled by COVID-19. Thousands of poll workers have dropped out for fear of contracting the virus, forcing cities to shutter dozens of polling places. Milwaukee, for example, consolidated its polling locations from 182 to five, while Green Bay consolidated its polling locations from 31 to two. Gov. Tony Evers asked the Republican-controlled legislature to postpone the election, but it refused. So he tried to delay it himself in an executive order on Monday. But the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court reinstated the election, thereby forcing voters to choose between protecting their health and exercising their right to vote.

Because voters are rightfully afraid of COVID-19, Wisconsin has been caught off guard by a surge in requests for absentee ballots. Election officials simply do not have time, resources, or staff to process all those requests. As a result, a large number of voters—at least tens of thousands—won’t get their ballot until after Election Day. And Wisconsin law disqualifies ballots received after that date. In response, last Thursday, a federal district court ordered the state to extend the absentee ballot deadline. It directed officials to count votes mailed after Election Day so long as they were returned by April 13. A conservative appeals court upheld his decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the only protection in place to ensure that voters could still safely cast ballots.

Now the Supreme Court has reversed that order. It allowed Wisconsin to throw out ballots postmarked and received after Election Day, even if voters were entirely blameless for the delay. (Thankfully, ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by April 13 still count, because the legislature didn’t challenge that extension.) In an unsigned opinion, the majority cited the Purcell principle, which cautions courts against altering voting laws shortly before an election. It criticized the district court for “fundamentally alter[ing] the nature of the election by permitting voting for six additional days after the election.” And it insisted that the plaintiffs did not actually request that relief—which, as Ginsburg notes in her dissent, is simply false.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Mark’s article at the link.

Just last week Trump admitted that if more Americans voted, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjBz7eao9XoAhUrlHIEHV-oARIQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2020%2Fmar%2F30%2Ftrump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus&usg=AOvVaw2AKTPjFL8DI8bt9ii1CYF2

John Roberts and his fellow GOP partisans on the Supremes got the message loud and clear. Although, they didn’t really need much direction from their Great Leader, since the GOP Supremes have scarcely ever seen a civil rights or voting rights law that they didn’t want to gut and pervert.

With markets wobbling, unemployment rising, and Trump’s “malicious incompetence” threatening American lives every day, the GOP hopes for November could depend on large-scale disenfranchisement and massive voter suppression. And, the J.R. Five have made it clear that they are primed and ready to twist and manipulate the law as necessary to guarantee their party’s minority stranglehold on government.

So much for “just calling balls and strikes.” Nope! The J.R. Five “resizes the strike zone” as necessary to guarantee victory for “their team” and defeat for American democracy.

PWS

04-06-20

WASHPOST: TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DACA RECIPIENTS SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES OF OUR PANDEMIC RESPONSE — Trump & His Supremes Add Insult To Injury! — America’s New “Dred Scottifyers”

From the WashPost Editorial Board:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/thousands-of-health-care-workers-are-at-risk-of-being-deported-trump-could-save-them/2020/03/30/834b533a-72ae-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html

BEFORE DAWN on Saturday morning, Aldo Martinez, a paramedic in Fort Myers, Fla., responded with his ambulance crew to a man who, having just been diagnosed with covid-19, was having a panic attack. The man didn’t know that Mr. Martinez, 26 years old, is an undocumented immigrant; nor that he is a “dreamer”; nor that his temporary work permit under an Obama-era program has been targeted by President Trump.

The covid-19 patient was not aware that Mr. Martinez’s ability to remain in the United States, as he has since his parents brought him here from Mexico at age 12, now hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court weighs the future of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program known as DACA. What the man did know was that Mr. Martinez, calm and competent, spent 45 minutes helping to soothe him, explaining the risks and symptoms and how to manage them.

[[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]

Some 27,000 dreamers are health-care workers; some, like Mr. Martinez, are on the front lines, grappling with a deadly pandemic. They are doctors, nurses, intensive care unit staff and EMTs trained to respond quickly to accidents, traumas and an array of other urgent medical needs.

Until now, because of DACA, they have been shielded from deportation and allowed to work legally. Their time may be running out.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the fall on the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the program; it is expected to rule in the coming months. If, as appears likely, the court’s conservative majority sides with the administration, Mr. Martinez and thousands of other health-care workers would lose their work permits and jobs, and face the threat of deportation. So would another 700,000 DACA recipients — food prep workers, teachers and tutors, government employees, and students, including those enrolled in medical programs.

That would be catastrophic, and not just for the dreamers themselves, young people in their 20s and 30s who have grown up here. It would also be catastrophic for the United States.

Mr. Trump could halt the threat to dreamers with the stroke of a pen, by issuing an executive order. He has referred to DACA recipients as “some absolutely incredible kids” and promised that they “shouldn’t be very worried” owing to his “big heart.” But, so far, he has taken every possible step to chase them out, and his administration has made clear that if it prevails in the Supreme Court, dreamers will be subject to deportation.

That would give Mr. Martinez about four months. His current DACA status expires Aug. 5, and it would probably not be renewable if the administration prevails.

[[The Opinions section is looking for stories of how the coronavirus has affected people of all walks of life. Write to us.]]

“I don’t want people thanking me because I expose myself to covid — I’m not here for the glamour of it,” Mr. Martinez told us. “The principle is when people are having an emergency, they don’t have safety or security — you’re there to provide that for them in a time of need.”

Now it’s a time of need for Mr. Martinez himself, and hundreds of thousands of other dreamers like him. The country needs them as never before. Will Mr. Trump step up to provide them with safety and security?

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

Let’s be clear about responsibility for this unconscionable self-inflicted looming disaster. There was an exceptionally well-justified nationwide injunction in effect against the Trump regime’s lawless attempt to terminate DACA, no “Circuit split,” and absolutely no emergency reason for the Supremes to take the DACA case. None, unless they were going to summarily affirm the lower court injunction. Yet, they went out of their way to intervene in an apparent effort by the “J.R. Five” to advance the regime’s gratuitously cruel and wasteful White Nationalist, racially motivated immigration and anti-human rights agenda.

At oral argument, although acknowledging the sympathetic circumstances, the GOP Justices showed little genuine concern for the human and legal consequences facing the “Dreamers” if the “J.R. Five,” as most expect them to do, “pull the plug” on these kids. Things like the consequences of loss of work authorization or permission to study and having to live your life in constant fear of arrest and removal seemed to go over the heads of the intentionally tone-deaf and condescending GOP majority.

At oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it very clearly: “This is not about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/supreme-court-dreamers.html?referringSource=articleShare. Her GOP colleagues, not for the first or last time, appeared anxious to tune out “the truth she spoke” and instead to please the regime’s overlords by unleashing the cruelty and wanton destruction of humanity.

Ever since their horrible “cop out” in the so-called “Travel Ban cases,” J.R. and his GOP buddies have been enabling a toxically unconstitutional invidiously motivated attack on the due process rights and human dignity of some of America’s most vulnerable “persons.” Often, they bend the normal rules applicable to everyone else “on demand” from “Trump uber-toady” Solicitor General Noel Francisco. They have played a disgraceful and cowardly role in the regime’s, largely successful to date, efforts to “Dred Scottify” and dehumanize the most vulnerable among us.

As Mark Joseph Stern very cogently said in Slate:

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket.

Life tenure makes these guys effectively unaccountable for their immoral and illegal actions. But, history will not forget where they stood in the face of bigotry, racism, cruelty, and tyranny.

A great democracy deserves and needs better from its life-tenured judiciary. Much better! The necessary shift from kakistocracy to democracy will require “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate. November must be the starting place if we wish to survive as a democratic republic!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

03-31-20

WHERE JUSTICE IS BLIND, DEAF, & REALLY, REALLY DUMB — AMERICA’S COURTS FLUNK CORONAVIRUS TEST — ROBERTS’S FECKLESS LEADERSHIP — AILA CALLS FOR CLOSING ALL IMMIGRATION COURTS!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/courts-coronavirus-spread.html

Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate:

For weeks, public health officials have warned that the coronavirus will spread rapidly in the United States but the infection rate could slow with social distancing and severe restrictions on mass gathering. The nation’s judiciary did not listen. Civil, criminal, and immigration courts continued to operate normally, with very few exceptions, until late last week. Even on Monday, after both the president and most governors had declared a state of emergency, a huge number of America’s courts continued to operate, forcing judges, attorneys, litigants, defendants, immigrants, and court staff into close quarters with potentially infected individuals. Conversations with more than two dozen lawyers and court staff (who requested anonymity to avoid professional blowback) across the country reveal a system that is disastrously unprepared for a pandemic—and facilitating the coronavirus’s spread.

Because the American judiciary is so decentralized, there is no single contingency plan that governs all courts in case of an emergency. Most state and federal courts are making up their own rules as they go. All 94 federal district courts and 13 federal appellate courts are scrambling independently to devise a strategy for COVID-19. In many states, individual trial and appeals courts are also struggling to meet their legal obligations without contributing to the spread of the virus. Immigration courts are under the control of the discombobulated and ineffectual Trump administration. So are agencies, like the Social Security Administration, that hold administrative hearings to adjudicate individuals’ access to public assistance. Meanwhile, thousands of jails, prisons, and immigrant detention facilities remain unwilling or unable to meaningfully address COVID-19, putting both detained people and staff at risk of infection. The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.

The legal system is actively jeopardizing millions of people’s health and lives.

State judiciaries’ sluggish response to the crisis was on display Monday in courtrooms around the country. Slate spoke with defense attorneys in Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Washington state, and the District of Columbia who witnessed large groups of defendants congregating in courthouses after police arrested them for low-level offenses. Many people had been jailed for at least one night for crimes like driving without a permit and possession of drug paraphernalia. In northern New Jersey, according to an attorney who was present, a prosecutor argued on Monday that defendants are, in fact, safer from the virus behind bars. But a defense attorney in the region told Slate that her clients in jail have no access to soap or toilet paper.

. . . .

As of Monday, federal district courts around the country were still in operation, though many had suspended jury trials. Chief Justice John Roberts, the head of the federal judiciary, has not issued public guidance to these courts, leaving them to fend for themselves. The chief judge of each federal district court must decide when, and if, to shutter completely. Similarly, the chief judge of each federal appeals court must determine how, and if, to hold oral arguments, and how to keep deciding cases in spite of the interruption. The Supreme Court has canceled March’s oral arguments.

Many immigration courts, which are controlled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the U.S. Department of Justice, were still operating on Monday too. EOIR cancelled all master calendar hearings on Sunday—these are short hearings, scheduled months or years in advance, that typically begin the deportation process. But courts are still holding other kinds of hearings, except in Seattle, whose immigration court has shut down entirely. According to a DOJ official at the Los Angeles Immigration Court, the agency has failed to provide employees with any meaningful guidance. This official told Slate that last week, a court administrator told staff that COVID-19 is “like the flu” and “not a big deal.” All last week, she said, “people were coming into courtrooms sick.” EOIR was just beginning to develop a telework plan on Monday and was withholding all information about future operations from staff.

An employee at the New York City Immigration Court spoke of similar disarray. This individual told Slate that her supervisor ignored repeated pleas to mitigate the risk of infection to staff. Immigrants with symptoms of COVID-19 have repeatedly appeared in court. When judges canceled hearings for the day to limit exposure to these individuals, this supervisor reportedly expressed anger that they had not simply moved to a different courtroom.

On Sunday, the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors joined immigration judges and lawyers to call on the Department of Justice to shutter immigration courts entirely. This unprecedented alliance of frequent foes condemned the DOJ’s response as “insufficient” and “not premised on transparent scientific information.” (The agency has yet to answer this letter.)

There are currently more than 50,000 individuals in immigrant detention. There are already coronavirus outbreaks cropping up at these detention facilities. But the government has put forth no comprehensive plan to test and treat patients. The same is true for inmates in state and federal facilities. A defense attorney in King County, Washington—a COVID-19 hot spot—told Slate on Monday that “there is no plan to protect people in jail from coronavirus. People are still held on nonviolent charges, and people are still cycling through on all sorts of minor charges.” As long as police continue to arrest individuals for low-level offenses, these people will be put in jail and then sent to a courthouse. Even if prosecutors decline charges, these individuals may have already been exposed to the virus and could spread it.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

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

Here’s the latest from Laura Lynch over at AILA:

The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

James McHenry

Director

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Matthew T. Albence

Deputy Director and Senior Official

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Submitted via email

March 16, 2020

Dear Attorney General Barr, Director McHenry, and Deputy Director Albence,

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is writing to follow up on our March 12, 2020 letter requesting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immediately implement procedures for the prevention and management of COVID-19 and our March 15, 2020 statement calling for the emergency closure of the nation’s immigration courts, sent in conjunction with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 511 (the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Professionals Union).

We appreciate the important measures already taken by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the suspension of non-detained master calendar hearings. However, the evolving nature of this crisis demands more aggressive action. Since our initial letter to ICE, President Donald Trump proclaimed that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. States and localities across the country have suspended school, put in place restrictions on the size of gatherings, closed restaurants and bars, and shut down tourist activities.

DOJ and DHS must acknowledge the severity of this pandemic, and take the following steps to protect DOJ employees, DHS employees, respondents, representatives, interpreters, experts, and other immigration court stakeholders, as well as the general public:

• Immediately Close Immigration Courts: DOJ should immediately close immigration courts for a minimum of two to four weeks so that public health officials have an opportunity to test and gain valuable information about who can transmit the COVID-19 virus and to reassess how to ensure a safe environment for immigration court hearings.

AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)

• Hold Telephonic Bond Hearings and Stipulate to Bond in Writing: DOJ should proceed with fully telephonic bond hearings so that detained individuals who are eligible can be released from custody as soon as possible and allow supporting documents to be faxed and emailed to the appropriate clerk. When possible, ICE OPLA should stipulate to bond in written motions so it is not necessary to hold hearings.

• Cancel ICE Check-Ins: ICE should cancel and/or reschedule all OSUP and/or ISAP appointments that are scheduled for at least the next 60-90 days and extend the same for several months as conditions warrant.

• Immediately Release Anyone With Vulnerabilities from Custody: ICE should immediately release vulnerable populations from ICE custody, including people 60 and over, pregnant people, and people with chronic illnesses, compromised immune systems, or disabilities, and people whose housing placements restrict their access to medical care and limit the staff’s ability to observe them.

• Decrease the Number of People in Detention to Limit Exposure: ICE should liberally use its discretion to release individuals from custody and decrease the overall ICE population, including through the increased use of parole authority, stipulating to bond in written motions, and use of alternatives to detention (with no check-in requirements for thirty days or more).

• Take Proper Care to Prevent Transmission in Custody: ICE should immediately test detainees who exhibit any symptoms and/or present risk factors, as delayed confirmation of cases will necessarily be too late to prevent transmission. ICE should also provide proper hygienic supplies at all ICE detention and check-in facilities, allowing easy access to all detained persons, the population under ICE supervision, and ICE staff. ICE should halt transfers from facility-to-facility and to out-of-state locations in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus throughout individual states and the U.S.

• Allow Stays of Removal and Other Emergency Motions to Be Submitted Via Mail: ICE should allow requests for stays of removal, and other emergency motions, to be submitted by mail instead of requiring an in-person filing with the applicant present.

• Issue a Blanket Extraordinary Circumstances Exception for One-Year Filing Deadlines: DOJ should issue a blanket extraordinary circumstances exception for asylum one-year filing deadlines that fall from March 1, 2020 (the beginning of the National Emergency) through the reopening of immigration courts.

2

AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)

• Provide Flexibility on All Deadlines: ICE and DOJ should liberally agree to and/or grant requests to extend filing deadlines based on imposition of remote work, loss of staff, necessity for child, elder, and family care based on school and institutional closures.

• Commit to Flexibly and Favorably Addressing COVID—19-Caused “Age Outs” on a Case-By-Case Basis. In the context of cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under INA § 240A(b), the Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged its ability to review the particular facts in a case in addressing a respondent’s argument that the age of qualifying relative should be “frozen” prior to the final administrative decision. Matter of Isidro, 25 I&N Dec. 829, 832 (BIA 2012) (rejecting respondent’s contention that age should be locked where there was no “undue or unfair delay” in the course of proceedings); see also Martinez-Perez v. Barr, No. 18-9573 (10th Cir. 2020) (BIA has jurisdiction and authority to interpret cancellation statute in a way that fixes the age of respondent’s daughter in light of undue or unfair delay).

• Stipulate to Relief When Appropriate, Especially in Detained Cases: ICE should stipulate to relief in cases where individual hearings are already scheduled, but must be re-calendared based on COVID-19 disruptions, and where the record in itself demonstrates that the respondent has meaningfully met her burden of proof based on a well-developed record of proceedings and evidentiary submissions that compel a grant of relief from removal.

• Parole Respondents in the Remain in Mexico Program: DHS should parole all respondents in the Remain in Mexico program (also known as MPP) into the U.S. on the date of their scheduled immigration court hearing date and provide them with a new hearing date in a non-detained court. At a minimum, EOIR must work with CBP to issue a new EOIR hearing notice and CBP must provide the respondent with both the new EOIR hearing notice and an MPP tear sheet. If the respondent does not have an MPP tear sheet containing a future U.S. immigration court date, the respondent would be out of status in Mexico and Mexico’s migration institute (INM) will likely refuse to renew the individuals’ temporary status in Mexico.

We respectfully request a response as soon as possible given the emergent circumstances. Please feel free to contact Kate Voigt (kvoigt@aila.org) with questions.

Sincerely,

THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

CC: Barbara M. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, ICE Office of Partnership and Engagement; Richard A. Rocha, ICE Spokesperson; Lauren Alder Reid, Assistance Director, EOIR Office of Policy.

3

AILA Doc. No. 20031666. (Posted 3/16/20)

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

So, the spread of the coronavirus worldwide was months in the making. Why didn’t Roberts convene a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, and the ABA to come up with an emergency plan?

Why didn’t EOIR, which has time for endless counterproductive “management” (actually “mismanagement”) nonsense (how about “judicial dashboards” for a mindless waste of time and money?), get together with the NAIJ, ICE, and AILA months ago to develop an emergency response plan for the Immigration Courts? No, the “powers that be” at EOIR were too busy trying to “decertify” the NAIJ with frivolous and unethical litigation.

The recent joint action by the NAIJ, AILA, the ICE union is a prime example of the way in which an Independent Article I Immigration Court, free of DOJ political mismanagement and improper influence, will foster cooperation, implement best practices, further efficiency, and make due process and fundamental fairness realities, not overnight, but certainly over time. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/15/as-eoir-dithers-immigration-professionals-take-cooperative-action-immigration-judges-prosecutors-and-attorneys-call-for-the-nationwide-closure-of-all-immigration-courts/Due process with humanity and efficiency! The “post-regime future” of an independent Immigration Court holds great promise and unlimited potential for good government and public service if we can only “get there!”

Once this emergency is over, America also needs a top to bottom re-examination of the leadership and administration of our diverse judicial systems. As a whole, they are obviously “not quote ready for prime time” (“NQRFPT”) when it comes to protecting the public or using technology for the common good.

Obviously, at many levels, Federal, State, and Local, we have some of the wrong people serving as judges. First and foremost, the law is about humanity and protecting and saving lives to the greatest extent possible. That’s a fundamental human message that Roberts and many other right wing judicial zealots, out of touch with the needs of the public and wedded to stilted semi-absurdist and contrived interpretations of the law, simply don’t get. America needs better judges, with some empathy, humanity, and common sense! Again, it won’t happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere to get anywhere in the future!

PWS

03-16-20

COMPLICITY WATCH: Justice Sonia Sotomayor Calls Out “Men In Black” For Perverting Rules To Advance Trump/Miller White Nationalist Nativist Immigration Agenda!

Mark Joseph Stern
Reporter, Slate

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sotomayor-trump-wealth-test-bias-dissent.html

Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate:

. . . .

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket.

Read the full article at the above link.

Here’s a link to Justice Sotomayor’s full dissent in Wolf v. Cook County:

SotomayorPublicChargeDissetn19a905_7m48

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Here’s a “key quote” from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent:

These facts—all of which undermine the Government’s assertion of irreparable harm—show two things, one about the Government’s conduct and one about this Court’s own. First, the Government has come to treat “th[e] exceptional mechanism” of stay relief “as a new normal.” Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 5). Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming lim- ited Court resources in each. And with each successive ap- plication, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge

6 WOLF v. COOK COUNTY SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

rule in particular shows how much its own definition of ir- reparable harm has shifted. Having first sought a stay in the New York cases based, in large part, on the purported harm created by a nationwide injunction, it now disclaims that rationale and insists that the harm is its temporary inability to enforce its goals in one State.

Second, this Court is partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process. That is because the Court—in this case, the New York cases, and many others—has been all too quick to grant the Government’s “reflexiv[e]” requests. Ibid. But make no mistake: Such a shift in the Court’s own behavior comes at a cost.

Stay applications force the Court to consider important statutory and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timeta- bles and without oral argument. They upend the normal appellate process, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay. (Here, the Government touts that in granting a stay in the New York cases, this Court “necessarily concluded that if the court of appeals were to uphold the preliminary injunctio[n], the Court likely would grant a petition for a writ of certiorari” and that “there was a fair prospect the Court would rule in favor of the govern- ment.” Application 3.) They demand extensive time and resources when the Court’s intervention may well be unnec- essary—particularly when, as here, a court of appeals is poised to decide the issue for itself.

Perhaps most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others. This Court often permits executions—where the risk of ir- reparable harm is the loss of life—to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner.” Mur- phy v. Collier, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (second statement of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 4); see also id., at ___ (ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., dissenting from grant of stay) (slip op., at 6) (“When courts do not have ad- equate time to consider a claim, the decisionmaking process may be compromised”); cf. Dunn v. Ray, 586 U. S. ___ (2019) (overturning the grant of a stay of execution). Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances— where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision making process that this Court must strive to protect.

I respectfully dissent.

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

Of course, the regime’s use of manufactured and clearly bogus “national emergencies” or fake appeals to “national security” is a perversion of both fact and law, as well as a mocking of Constitutional separation of powers. This obscenely transparent legal ruse essentially was invited by the Roberts and his GOP brethren. Roberts somewhat disingenuously claims to be a “student of history.” But, whether he takes responsibility for it or not, he has basically invited Trump & Miller to start a new “Reichstag Fire” almost every week with migrants, asylum seekers, Latinos, and the less affluent as the “designated usual suspects.”

Powerful as her dissent is, Justice Sotomayor actually understates the case against her GOP colleagues. Every racist, White Nationalist, nativist, and/or authoritarian movement in American history has been enabled, advanced, and protected by morally corrupt and intellectually dishonest jurists who have intentionally provided “legal cover” for those official misdeeds. How about “states rights,” “separate but equal,” “plenary power,” and a host of other now discredited legal doctrines used to justify everything from slavery to denying voting, and other Constitutional rights including life itself to African Americans? They were all used to “cover” for actions that might more properly have been considered “crimes against humanity.”

Who knows what legal blather Roberts and his four fellow rightist toadies will come up with to further promote the destruction of humanity and the disintegration of American democracy at the hands of Trump, Miller, Barr, Putin, and the rest of the gang?

But, courageous “outings” like those by Justice Sotomayor will help insure that history will be able to trace the bloody path of needless deaths, ruined lives, wasted human potential, official hate mongering, and unspeakable human misery they are unleashing directly to their doors and hold them accountable in a way that our current system has disgracefully failed to do.

Trump was right about at least one thing: There are indeed “GOP Justices” on the Supremes wholly owned by him and his party. They consistently put GOP rightist ideology and and authoritarianism above the Constitution, human rights, the rule of law, intellectual honesty, and simple human decency. Other than that, they’re a “great bunch of guys!”

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

02-22-20

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern in Apple News:

Trump Judges Are Now a Threat to America’s National Security

The 5th Circuit let a lone judge order the deployment of unvaccinated SEALs. High-ranking officers say the decision puts the world at risk.

🇺🇸 `Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Better Judges for better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! Clean up the mess @ Justice!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! A Feckless Legislature & Federal Judiciary, Never!

Related posts:

Vote ‘Em Out, Vote ‘Em Out! It’s a Start On A Better Court, For America & For Humanity!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts: