"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Citing little-known power given to the CDC to ban entry of people who might spread disease and ignoring the Refugee Act of 1980, an internal memo has ordered Border Patrol agents to push the overwhelming majority of migrants back into Mexico.
For the first time since the enactment of the Refugee Act in 1980, people who come to the U.S. saying they fear persecution in their home countries are being turned away by Border Patrol agents with no chance to make a legal case for asylum.
The shift, confirmed in internal Border Patrol guidance obtained by ProPublica, is the upshot of the Trump administration’s hasty emergency action to largely shut down the U.S.-Mexico border over coronavirus fears. It’s the biggest step the administration has taken to limit humanitarian protection for people entering the U.S. without papers.
The Trump administration has created numerous obstacles over recent years for migrants to claim asylum and stay in the United States. But it had not — until now — allowed Border Patrol agents to simply expel migrants with no process whatsoever for hearing their claims.
The administration gave the Border Patrol unchallengeable authority over migrants seeking asylum by invoking a little-known power given to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. public health agency, to ban the entry of people or things that might spread “infectious disease” in the U.S. The CDC on March 20 barred entry of people without proper documentation, on the logic that they could be unexamined carriers of the disease and out of concern about the effects if the novel coronavirus swept through Customs and Border Protection holding facilities.
U.S. immigration law requires the government to allow people expressing a “well-founded” fear of persecution or torture to be allowed to pursue legal status in the United States. The law also requires the government to grant status to anyone who shows they likely face persecution if returned to their homeland.
“The Trump administration’s new rule and CDC order do not trump U.S. laws passed by Congress and U.S. legal obligations under refugee and human rights treaties,” Eleanor Acer, of the legal advocacy group Human Rights First, told ProPublica. “But the Trump administration is wielding them as the ultimate tool to shut the border to people seeking refuge.”
Two weeks ago, the Trump administration hastily put in place a policy, which the internal guidance calls Operation Capio, to push the overwhelming majority of unauthorized migrants into Mexico within hours of their apprehension in the U.S.
The Trump administration has been publicly vague on what happens under the new policy to migrants expressing a fear of persecution or torture, the grounds for asylum. But the guidance provided to Border Patrol agents makes clear that asylum-seekers are being turned away unless they can persuade both a Border Patrol agent — as well as a higher-ranking Border Patrol official — that they will be tortured if sent home. There is no exception for those who seek protection on the basis of their identities, such as race or religion.
Over 7,000 people have been expelled to Mexico under the order, according to sources briefed by Customs and Border Protection officials.
The guidance, shared with ProPublica by a source within the Border Patrol, instructs agents that any migrant caught entering without documentation must be processed for “expulsion,” citing the CDC order. When possible, migrants are to be driven to the nearest official border crossing and “expelled” into Mexico or Canada. (The Mexican government has agreed to allow the U.S. to push back not only Mexican migrants, but also those from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador; the four countries account for about 85% of all unauthorized border crossings.)
Under the Refugee Convention, which the U.S. signed onto in 1968, countries are barred from sending someone back to a country in which they could be persecuted based on their identity (specifically, their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership in a “particular social group”).
The Trump administration has taken several steps to restrict the ability of migrants to seek asylum, a form of legal status that allows someone to eventually become a permanent U.S. resident. Until now, however, it has acknowledged that U.S. and international law prevents the U.S. from sending people back to a place where they will be harmed. And it has still allowed people who claim a fear of persecution to seek a less permanent form of legal status in the U.S. (In the last two weeks of February, 2,915 people were screened for humanitarian protection, according to the most recent statistics provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.)
The Border Patrol guidance provided to ProPublica shows that the U.S. is acting as if that obligation no longer applies.
Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, said it would not comment on the document provided to ProPublica. Asked whether any guidance had been provided regarding people who expressed a fear of persecution of torture, an agency spokesperson said in a statement, “The order does not apply where a CBP officer determines, based on consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, or public health interests, that the order should not be applied to a particular person.”
That language does not appear in the guidance ProPublica received. Instead, it specifies that any exception must be approved by the chief patrol agent of a given Border Patrol sector. One former senior CBP official, who reviewed the guidance at ProPublica’s request, said that because there are so many levels of hierarchy between a chief patrol agent and a line agent, agents would be unlikely to ask for an exemption to be made.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Shows how fragile our legal system and our democratic institutions are. Contrary to “popular liberal myth” they have not “been holding up well” in the age of Trump.A GOP Senate, of course, deserves much of the blame. But, it’s not like the Democrats have exactly put protecting the rule of law and Constitutional Due Process for the most vulnerable among us at the forefront.
We can also trace the disintegration of the legal system under Trump directly to the the failure of Roberts and the GOP majority on the Supremes to stand up for separation of powers, racial and religious justice, and Executive accountability. By ignoring a very clear record of invidious racial, religious, and political bias behind Trump’s Executive actions, and allowing a transparently contrived “national security” rationale to be used, in the so-called “Travel Ban Case” the Supremes’ majority basically signaled they had no intention of halting a White Nationalist assault on our Constitution and the rights of vulnerable minorities, particularly migrants. In other words, Roberts & Co. said: “It’s OK to ‘Dred Scottify’ away, we’ll never stand in your way.” And, true to their word, the “J.R. Five” have been more than happy to ignore the law and “green light” the White Nationalist nativist immigration agenda.
So, four decades of painstakingly hard cooperative work by “good government” advocates, NGOs, the private sector, and the international community to reach an imperfect, yet basically workable, consensus that saved countless lives and helped fuel our economic success, the Refugee Act of 1980 lies in tatters. Decades of progress destroyed in a little over three years. That’s “institutional failure” on a massive scale!
Don’t look for the Refugee Act or the rule of law to be resurrected any time soon. Under Trump and his would-be authoritarian kakistocracy, the “emergencies,” real and fabricated, will never end until democracy and human decency are dead and buried. And, don’t count on Mitch McConnell or John Roberts to stand in the way.
This is exactly how democracies die. But, we do have the remaining power to remove the kakistocracy at all levels of our government and start rebuilding America. Yes, Roberts and his gang have life tenure. But, with “regime change,” we can start appointing better judges who will aggressively push back against the far-right, anti-democracy judicial agenda! Folks who believe in Due Process, fundamental fairness, the rule of law, racial equality, human decency, and equal justice for all! Vote to save our nation in November!
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!
Affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained and found to have a credible fear of persecution, the panel affirmed the injunction insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs have a due process right to bond hearings, but remanded for further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.
The district court certified a nationwide class of all detained asylum seekers who were subject to expedited removal proceedings, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, but were not provided a bond hearing with a record of hearing within seven days of requesting a hearing. Part A of the district court’s modified preliminary injunction provided: 1) bond hearings must take place within seven days of a class member’s request, or the member must be released; 2) the burden of proof is on the government to show why the
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 PADILLA V. ICE
member should not be released; and 3) the government must produce recordings or verbatim transcripts of the hearings, as well as written decisions. Part B concluded that the class is constitutionally entitled to bond hearings. A motions panel of this court previously denied the government’s request to stay Part B, but granted the stay as to Part A.
The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim, explaining that immigration detention violates the Due Process Clause unless a special justification outweighs the constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that other processes—seeking parole from detention or filing habeas petitions—were insufficient to satisfy due process. The panel further rejected the government’s suggestion that noncitizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause, observing the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of entry—he or she is entitled to due process.
The panel next concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its irreparable harm analysis, noting substandard physical conditions and medical care in detention, lack of access to attorneys and evidence, separation from family, and re-traumatization. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the equities and public interest favors plaintiffs, explaining that the district court weighed: 1) plaintiffs’ deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and its attendant harms; 2) the fact that it is always in the public interest to prevent constitutional violations; and 3) the
PADILLA V. ICE 5
government’s interest in the efficient administration of immigration law.
As to Part A of the injunction, the panel concluded that the record was insufficient to support the requirement of hearings within seven days, and that the district court made insufficient findings as to the burdens that Part A may impose on immigration courts. The panel also noted that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings may have dramatically increased since the entry of the injunction. Thus, the panel remanded to the district court for further factual development of the preliminary injunction factors as to Part A.
The panel also rejected the government’s argument that the district court lacked authority to grant injunction relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which provides: “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of [8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” Examining the relevant precedent, statutory scheme, and legislative history, the panel concluded that here, where the class is composed of individual noncitizens, each of whom is in removal proceedings and facing an immediate violation of their rights, and where the district court has jurisdiction over each individual member of that class, classwide injunctive relief is consistent with congressional intent.
Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as to the nationwide class. However, the panel directed that, on
6 PADILLA V. ICE
remand, the district court must also revisit the nationwide scope.
Dissenting, Judge Bade wrote that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief in this case, concluding that the majority’s opinion does not square with the plain text of § 1252(f)(1), is inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court cases, and needlessly creates a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit. Judge Bade further wrote that, even if the district court had jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overbroad and exceeds what the constitution demands. Judge Bade would vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings with instructions to dismiss the claims for classwide injunctive relief.
PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.
OPNION BY: Chief Judge Sydney R. Thomas
DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bridget S. Bade
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY OPINION:
The government also suggests that non-citizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause. As we have discussed, this position is precluded by Zadvydas and its progeny. The government relies on inapposite cases that address the peculiar constitutional status of noncitizens apprehended at a port-of-entry, but permitted to temporarily enter the United States under specific conditions. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (“Mezei”), 345 U.S. 206, 208–09, 213–15 (1953) (noncitizen excluded while still aboard his ship, but then detained at Ellis Island pending final exclusion proceedings gained no additional procedural rights with respect to removal by virtue of his “temporary transfer from ship to shore” pursuant to a statute that “meticulously specified that such shelter ashore ‘shall not be considered a landing’”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) (noncitizen paroled into the United States while waiting for a determination of her admissibility was not “within the United States” “by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (noncitizen excluded at Ellis Island but detained instead of being deported immediately due to suspension of deportations during World War I “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line”).
Indeed, these cases, by carving out exceptions not applicable here, confirm the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of his or her entry—he or she is entitled to due process. See, e.g., Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“[A]liens who have once passed
PADILLA V. ICE 25
through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”); Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 187 (explaining that “immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality,” and recognizing, “[i]n the latter instance . . . additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely ‘on the threshold of initial entry’” (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212)); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the entry fiction is best seen . . .as a fairly narrow doctrine that primarily determines the procedures that the executive branch must follow before turning an immigrant away” because “[o]therwise, the doctrine would allow any number of abuses to be deemed constitutionally permissible merely by labelling certain ‘persons’ as non-persons”). We thus conclude that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clause.
*******************************
First, and foremost, let’s give a big vote of appreciation to the All-Star Team at Wilmer Cutler who represented our Round Table on this:
Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.
Alan Schoenfeld Partner Wilmer Cutler, NYLori A. Martin Partner Wilmer Cutler, NYKnightess of the Round Table
This team is it’s own “Special Forces Brigade” of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”)!
WOW! Persons are “persons” under the Constitution even when they have brown skins and are asylum seekers! How “rad” can you get!What a blow to “business as usual” for the regime and their “Dred Scottification” program of dehumanizing and making non-persons out of migrants and other vulnerable minorities!
Too bad that the Supremes and other Circuit Courts have too often advanced “Dred Scottification,” hiding behind transparently bogus and contrived “national emergencies” and the doctrine of judicial dereliction of duty otherwise known as “Chevron deference.” I guess that’s why the regime has the contempt for both the law and the Article III Courts to press such legally, morally, and Constitutionally “bankrupt” arguments as they did in this case. Never know when you’ll get a “thumbs up” from those who sometimes don’t view oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow humans with enough seriousness!
Significantly, the panel found that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that they are constitutionally entitled to individualized bond hearings before a “neutral decisionmaker.” However, in doing so they “papered over” the obvious fact that the constitutional requirement of a “neutral decisionmaker” cannot be fulfilled as long as Billy Barr or other politicos control the Immigration Courts!
Indeed, the panel decision was a strong rebuke of Barr’s atrocious, unethical, scofflaw decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) purporting to unilaterally change the rules to eliminate bond for those who had passed “credible fear.” Fact is that no individual appearing in today’s Immigration Courts has access to the constitutionally-required “neutral decisionmaker” because Barr retains the ability to simply unilaterally change any result that doesn’t match his White Nationalist nativist agenda and can hire and fire the so-called “judges” at will.
Indeed, under Barr’s totally illegal and professionally insulting “production quotas,” I’m not sure that the “judges” on the “deportation assembly line” even get “production credit” for bond decisions because they aren’t “final orders of removal.” However, denial of bond is actually an important “whistle stop” on the “deportation express.” Those kept in the “New American Gulag” have difficulty finding attorneys and the systematic mistreatment they receive in detention helps to demoralize them and coerce them into giving up claims or waiving appeals.
When are the Article IIIs finally going to stop “beating around the bush” and hold this whole mess to be unconstitutional, as it most clearly is?
In some ways, the panel’s decision reminds me of one of my own long-ago concurring/dissenting opinion in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799, 810 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (“Joseph II”):
However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.
Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in custody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.
The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to pre-vail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.
The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.
In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.
Concern for Due Process and fundamental fairness have intentionally been eradicated in the Immigration “Courts” by Sessions,Whitaker, and Barr. It’s past time for this constitutional mockery to be put out of its misery (and the unending misery it causes for the humans coming before it) once and for all!
As my late BIA colleague Judge Fred W. Vacca once said, albeit in a different context, “It’s time to put an end to this pathetic imitation of an adjudication.” Fred and I didn’t always agree. In fact, we disagreed much of the time. But, he did know when it was finally time to “stop the nonsense,” even when some of our colleagues just kept the system churning long past the point of reason and sanity.
And, folks, that was back in the days when the BIA actually functioned more or less like an “independent appellate court” until the Ashcroft purge of ’03 forever ended that noble vision. Like the rest of the system and those who enable it to keep churning lives as if they were mere water under the bridge, the BIA and the rest of the Immigration “Courts” have now become a national disgrace — a blot on our national conscience. Human beings seeking justice are neither “numbers” to be achieved for “satisfactory ratings,” nor “enforcement problems” to be exterminated without Due Process.
Dehumanization of the “other”and stripping them of legal and human rights is a key part of fascism. It’s what allowed German judges and most of German society to “look the other way” or actively aid in the holocaust. It has no place in our justice system — now or ever!
Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!
IN EARLY March, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seemed to have not yet gotten the memo that a deadly virus was threatening the country. The deportation agency was mustering hundreds of additional special agents, normally busy with long-term investigations, to surge into so-called sanctuary cities and round up undocumented immigrants by the thousands. Operation Palladium, as it was called — Operation Pandemonium would have been more apt — was already terrifying migrants and forcing them deeper into the shadows. That was exactly the wrong thing to do as a deepening public health crisis gripped society.
Better late than never, the Trump administration has now backed off its ramped-up immigration crackdown. It remains unclear how many lives — of immigrants and native-born Americans alike — will have been risked in the meantime as a result of the administration’s scare tactics.
[[More coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]]
Those tactics have been embedded not only in sweeps through major cities but also in policy. The so-called public charge rule, imposed last year by the administration, discourages legal immigrants from seeking care at public hospitals and clinics, lest they be deemed a burden on society and, as a result, denied legal permanent residence when they apply for green cards. That was true even before anyone had heard the words novel coronavirus or covid-19.
Similarly, many undocumented immigrants have been equally reluctant to seek health care, fearing that ICE agents will grab them when they do. The agency said it didn’t generally stake out medical facilities, but it didn’t forbid it either.
The anxieties and behaviors arising from those policies are baked into immigrant communities. Now the administration, mindful that they are antithetical to fighting a pandemic, is trying to unbake them.
Last Wednesday, ICE announced it would limit enforcement operations to detaining unauthorized migrants who are actual criminals or threats to society. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which handles green card applications for legal permanent residence, said last week that applicants might not be rejected on the basis of having sought free medical attention arising from the coronavirus crisis, if they could “provide an explanation and relevant supporting documentation.”
Will those announcements, buried in the avalanche of pandemic news and the fine print of government regulations, be too late to change migrants’ habits? Having scared the wits out of legal and undocumented immigrants for the past three years, can the administration now un-scare them — at least enough to seek medical care if they need it?
[[The Opinions section is looking for stories of how the coronavirus has affected people of all walks of life. Write to us.]]
Those are pressing questions because immigrant and native-born communities are closely integrated in this country, even if the Trump administration has been loath to acknowledge it. As a public health matter, it is disastrous to erect policy barriers to impede any community’s access to care, because contagious diseases make no such distinctions. That is precisely what the administration has done.
It has long been President Trump’s contention that immigrants are vectors for disease. Until now, there has been little evidence for that. In the current circumstances, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy if migrants, frightened by the administration’s relentlessly hostile policies, fail to seek the medical attention they need just as critically as their U.S.-born neighbors, colleagues and relatives.
**********************
The regime couldn’t have pulled off this disaster without the help and support of J.R. & his Supremes. Time after time, they have ignored overwhelming evidence of White Nationalist bias and intentional factual misrepresentations driving so-called “policies,” looked the other way as the regime abused the concepts of “national security” and “emergency” as a pretext for invidious actions, abandoned their duty to our Constitution, mocked the rule of law, and shown a deep and abiding disrespect for human values and human decency.
And, make no mistake about it, the real targets of the regime’s judicially enabled “Dred Scottification” are American communities of color, regardless of citizenship. The horrible, intentionally “tone deaf” performance of the “Roberts’ Court” in the face of the regime’s unbridled racism and tyranny has truly brought us to one of the lowest points in American history.
Dahlia Lithwick Legal Reporter SlateHonorable James Dannenberg Retired State Judge Hawaii
Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:
James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.
On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.
The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.
I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.
The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
**********
So true. I’d also compare JR’s subservience to a transparently racist, White Nationalist, authoritarian agenda to White Supremacist darling Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision. Roberts is knowingly enabling the “Dred Scottifing” of Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, political opponents, the LGBTQ community, journalists, minority voters, and a host of others on the authoritarian regime’s “enemies” list.
At a time when America needs a Chief Justice with the courage and integrity to stand up for our Constitution, the rule of law, and the lives of the most vulnerable among us, we instead get Roberts.
J.R. Is quick to stand up for the rights of corporations, guns, and the Executive. But, when it comes to the rights of individuals — things like due process, human rights, and the right to be treated with human dignity, he’s nowhere to be found.
Only Justice Sotomayor had the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for the future of humanity, simple human decency, and the rule of law by voting to deny the regime’s fraudulent stay request. Typically, Roberts & Co. didn’t even have the decency and intellectual honesty to provide a rationale for their life-threatening action. A reasoned decision is one of the “minimal requirements for due process” that Roberts and the Supremes’ majority ignore on a regular basis when rolling over for Trump toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco and his transparently fabricated “emergencies.” Francisco is another one whose disingenuous role and disregard for legal ethics in carrying out Trump’s wanton cruelty and human rights abuses should never be forgotten.
The damage caused by Roberts’s failure to lead and protect humanity isn’t legalistic or academic. It’s “real harm” to “real people.”
Let’s get “up close and personal” with what happens to individuals who fled to our country seeking only due process and fair and humane treatment, just to find Roberts’s and his Supremes’ immorality and warped sense of justice.
Here’s what Roberts’s complicity looks like:
The burns from the acid attack Elizabeth endured while she was kidnapped.The acid burned all the way through to the bone in Elizabeth’s left ankle. Courtesy of Elizabeth.Courtesy of Elizabeth Elizabeth’s acid burns.
That’s right folks. Torture, proudly presented to you by Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority of the United States Supreme Court. Who would have thought it could happen here? Like Judge Dannenberg, I spent a lifetime respecting the Supreme Court and even defending their decisions, including ones with which I disagreed. That has ended with the corruption, dishonesty, and inhumanity of the Roberts Court in the Age of Trump. Unworthy of America. Unworthy by of respect.
And here’s some narrative to go with it from Adolfo Flores over at BuzzFeed News:
Elizabeth left her home in Guatemala after being brutally beaten by the father of her daughter. She went to the police who refused to help her despite filing a complaint against him. The beatings in front of her daughter continued. Fearing that one day soon he’d kill her, Elizabeth left with her daughter.
“There’s a reason why there are so many femicides,” Elizabeth said.
The pair arrived near Ciudad Juárez in late July. She got off a bus she took with her daughter that was supposed to take them to Ciudad Juárez and got into what she believed was an Uber. She asked the driver to take her to the bridge that connects the city to El Paso. But as the city lights started to fade and the streets turned to desert and cliffs, Elizabeth realized the driver was taking her away from the city.
For about 12 days she was kept inside a dirty home, occasionally fed old food, and assaulted. Different men touched her genital area and licked her breasts in front of her daughter, according to documents provided by her attorneys. She wasn’t raped, but later had brownish discharge from her vagina she believes was the result of the men hurting her with an object or fingers.
Her attorneys said they believe the men were in the cartel, but don’t know for sure. They threatened to rape her and her daughter if she didn’t provide them with a number to call family for ransom. After days of holding her for ransom that her family couldn’t pay, the men threw chemical acid on her legs that resulted in second-degree burns. Despite closing her eyes and covering her ears, her then-10-year-old daughter could hear her mother’s screams, later telling Elizabeth she would never forget the sound of them.
At one point their kidnappers went outside and her daughter realized they left the door open. Elizabeth was too weak and in too much pain from the acid burns, but her daughter persisted.
“‘I don’t want them to kill us, torture us, or do something worse,'” Elizabeth recalled her daughter saying. “‘I can’t take this anymore, I feel like I’m going to die from sadness.'”
The pair ran from the house and were eventually chased by their kidnappers, armed with large black weapons, Elizabeth said. She fainted from the pain and heat, so her daughter ran ahead and flagged down police officers who called for help. A helicopter arrived shortly after to pick up Elizabeth.
Elizabeth woke up in a hospital and was discharged after seven days despite her left ankle still bleeding and with the bone exposed. Elizabeth said the hospital was overcrowded and didn’t have enough space, but believes she was discharged quickly because she was an immigrant and not a priority for the hospital’s staff.
She was taken to a shelter that was later closed due to bad conditions. At a second shelter, the director and staff helped cure her ankle — which smelled and cause her to fear she would get gangrene — with medication and topical creams because Elizabeth was too scared to venture outside.
In November, Elizabeth had recovered enough to walk, so she went with her daughter to the Arizona border and presented herself to CBP officers to request asylum. She told them about her attack and was taken to a hospital in Tucson to be medically screened. The doctor prescribed her medication to avoid infection. Then CBP sent her back to Ciudad Juárez.
On Jan. 31, Palazzo and other attorneys walked with her to a border crossing and asked that she be allowed to fight her case in the US. She was interviewed on the phone by the asylum officer who later said she failed.
While Elizabeth was in Ciudad Juárez, the shelter operators asked her if she could watch the door while they ran an errand. A shootout occurred shortly after between criminals and police near the shelter. Men who were running from the police ran up to the shelter’s doors and told Elizabeth to let them in. She faced them and refused, but they threatened to come back for revenge before running off.
Last week, a day before Elizabeth was due at a court hearing in El Paso, she was in the streets of Ciudad Juárez when one of her kidnappers approached her and recognized her. Filled with dread, Elizabeth and her daughter quickly made their way to the shelter to hide. Her fear then was that the men would come looking for her there.
The next day, on Friday, she went to her immigration court hearing in El Paso. She joined other immigrants in MPP who present themselves at the border in the predawn hours of the day to be transported to immigration court. Her plan was to ask for another non-refoulement interview, but that same morning, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration policy.
For the entire day, attorneys, immigrants, and advocates tried to understand what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ order affirming a 2019 preliminary injunction meant for people stuck in Mexico, but also what would happen to those who had court hearings in the US that day, like Elizabeth. Sending them back would surely violate the judges’ order, some immigration attorneys said.
By Friday night, the 9th Circuit stayed its initial order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing MPP and the policy was allowed to continue. Still, Elizabeth and her daughter remained in CBP custody, and attorneys weren’t sure authorities were going to release her into the US.
She was interviewed three times about her fears of being sent back to Mexico. Her daughter told a US asylum officer about the nightmares she has, how she can’t sleep, and that she had trouble eating. Eventually, Elizabeth was told she passed her interview, was released Monday with an ankle monitor, and sent to reunite with family in Kansas.
Elizabeth was worried about the costs of continuing to receive medical care in the US for her acid burns, but she is determined to start a new chapter in her life.
“I’ve suffered a lot,” she said, “but for the first time in a long time, I feel safe.”
UPDATE
March 7, 2020, at 12:54 a.m.
This post was updated to include the more than 1,000 public reports of rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violence against immigrants sent back to Mexico.
There are lots of Elizabeths out there who have been silenced, some forever, by the likes of Roberts and other “unjust judges.” But, eventually, their stories will be told in all their grim and horrifying detail. At that point, folks like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and their enablers will attempt to “rewrite history,” to eschew moral and legal responsibility and shift the blame elsewhere with the “usual BS” like “just following the law,” “calling balls and strikes,” “just following orders.” Those are largely the same pathetic excuses offered by those who advanced the cause of human slavery, created Jim Crow, enabled genocide against Native Americans, and helped Hitler.
One of the most important tasks of the younger generation of the New Due Process Army is to bear witness and insure that J.R. & Co. don’t “get away with murder,” literally. Their job is to insure that the stories of those wronged by enablers of the Trump regime are heard loudly and clearly; to confront the complicit with the judgements of history; to insure that the descendantsof those who “stood small” and failed humanity know who their ancestors “really were” when the chips were down; and to make sure that history never again repeats itself in the form of John Roberts or anyone like him being allowed to hold positions of great trust and public responsibility in our judiciary.
Take a good like at the pictures above of Elizabeth’s legs and ankles. Those aren’t the results of somebody legitimately “just calling balls and strikes.” Roberts has “struck out.” Unfortunately, however, the rules allow him to continue to play the game to the detriment of our nation and human decency and the continued torment of those to whom he has willfully and inexcusably denied justice.
Due Process Forever; The Complicity of John Roberts, Never!
Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.
In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.
His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.
Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.
Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.
That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.
Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.
There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.
****************
The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:
They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.
Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!
With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!
HERNANDEZ ET AL. v. MESA
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17–1678. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
Respondent, United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, in a tragic and disputed cross-border incident. Mesa was standing on U. S. soil when he fired the bullets that struck and killed Hernández, who was on Mexican soil, after having just run back across the border following entry onto U. S. territory. Agent Mesa contends that Hernández was part of an illegal border crossing attempt, while petitioners, Hernández’s parents, claim he was playing a game with his friends that involved running back and forth across the culvert sep- arating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The shooting drew international attention, and the Department of Justice investi- gated, concluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Bor- der Patrol policy or training, and declined to bring charges against him. The United States also denied Mexico’s request for Agent Mesa to be extradited to face criminal charges in Mexico.
Petitioners sued for damages in U. S. District Court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court dismissed their claims, and the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After this Court vacated that de- cision and remanded for further consideration in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed, refusing to rec- ognize a Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting.
Held: Bivens’ holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Pp. 4–20.
(a) In Bivens, the Court implied a Fourth Amendment claim for damages even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The Court later extended Bivens’ reach to cover claims under the Fifth and
2
HERNANDEZ v. MESA Syllabus
Eighth Amendments. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228; Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. But Bivens’ expansion has since become “a ‘disfa- vored’ judicial activity,” Abbasi, supra, at ___, and the Court has gen- erally expressed doubt about its authority to recognize causes of action not expressly created by Congress, see, e.g., Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___. When considering whether to extend Bivens, the Court uses a two-step inquiry that first asks whether the request in- volves a claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate- gory of defendants.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 68. If so, the Court then asks whether there are any “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation” about granting the extension. Abbasi, supra, at ___. Pp. 4–8.
(b) Petitioners’ Bivens claims arise in a new context. Their claims are based on the same constitutional provisions as claims in cases in which damages remedies were previously recognized, but the con- text—a cross-border shooting—is significantly “different . . . from pre- vious Bivens cases.” Abbasi, supra, ___. It involves a “risk of disrup- tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches.” Abbasi, supra, ___. Pp. 8–9.
(c) Multiple, related factors counsel hesitation before extending Bivens remedies into this new context. Pp. 9–19.
(1) The expansion of a Bivens remedy that impinges on foreign re- lations—an arena “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches . . . as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292—risks interfering with the Executive Branch’s “lead role in foreign policy,” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 524. A cross- border shooting affects the interests of two countries and, as happened here, may lead to disagreement. It is not for this Court to arbitrate between the United States and Mexico, which both have legitimate and important interests at stake and have sought to reconcile those inter- ests through diplomacy. Pp. 9–12.
(2) Another factor is the risk of undermining border security. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for pre- venting the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods into the United States, and the conduct of their agents positioned at the border has a clear and strong connection to national security. This Court has not extended Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, see, e.g., Chap- pell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, and a similar consideration is applicable to the framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that lethal force at the border was unlaw- fully employed by a border agent. Pp. 12–14.
(3) Moreover, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages against federal officials for injury inflicted outside
Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus
S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is avail- able only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. §2680(k). And the Tor- ture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. §1350, cannot be used by an alien to sue a United States officer. When Con- gress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch of- ficials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e.g., Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. §2734. Congress’s decision not to allow suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not create a cause of action that extends across U. S. borders either. Pp. 14–18.
(4) These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting the separation of powers. The most important question is whether Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the an- swer is Congress. Congress’s failure to act does not compel the Court to step into its shoes. Pp. 19–20.
885 F. 3d 811, affirmed.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., andTHOMAS,GORSUCH,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. THOMAS,J.,fileda concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Key Quote From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court held that injured plaintiffs could pursue claims for damages against U. S. officers for conduct disregarding constitutional constraints. The in- stant suit, invoking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with friends in a culvert along the United States- Mexico border. A U. S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions controlling his office and situated on the U. S. side of the border, shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. The boy’s parents sued the officer for damages in fed- eral court, alleging that a rogue federal law enforcement of- ficer’s unreasonable use of excessive force violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At the time of the incident, it is uncontested, the officer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U. S. national or a citizen of another land. See Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5–6).
When the case first reached this Court, the Court re- manded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to noncit- izens (here, the victim’s parents) when the U. S. officer acted stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing
2 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
was suffered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U. S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plain- tiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. for- eign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the applica- tion of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the plaintiffs’ complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.
* * **
Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated in- cident. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged that border agent fired 14 to 30 bullets across the border, killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing various incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by border and immigration officers); Brief for Border Network for Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing indi- viduals killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800 complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97% of the complaints resulting in formal deci- sions, no action was taken. D. Martínez, G. Cantor, & W. Ewing, No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Re- sponding to Complaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council 1–8 (2014), americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/
14 HERNANDEZ v. MESA GINSBURG, J., dissenting
default/files/research/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf. Ac- cording to amici former Customs and Border Protection of- ficials, “the United States has not extradited a Border Pa- trol agent to stand trial in Mexico, and to [amici’s] knowledge has itself prosecuted only one agent in a cross- border shooting.” Brief for Former Officials of U. S. Cus- toms and Border Protection Agency as Amici Curiae 4. These amici warn that, “[w]ithout the possibility of civil li- ability, the unlikely prospect of discipline or criminal pros- ecution will not provide a meaningful deterrent to abuse at the border.” Ibid. In short, it is all too apparent that to redress injuries like the one suffered here, it is Bivens or nothing.
***
I resist the conclusion that “nothing” is the answer re- quired in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judg- ment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court for violating their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
******************************************
This case is straightforward. Mesa a CBP Agent standing in the United States shot Hernandez, an unarmed 15-year-old Mexican standing in Mexico without justification. This violated Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Had the lower Federal Courts and the Supremes applied the law on “Constitutional torts” correctly, Mesa would have been found liable. The Government probably would have settled with the Hernandez family.
Instead, nearly of decade of unnecessary litigation ensued during which all three levels of the U.S. Court System failed the Hernandez family and distorted our system of justice. Dissenting Fifth Circuit Judge (now Ambassador) Ed Prado summed up this legal farce in a single powerful phrase: “[the majority has been] led astray from the familiar circumstances of this case by empty labels of national security, foreign affairs, and extra- territoriality.” For the record, Ambassador Prado is a lifelong Republican. I worked with him on immigration litigation during the Reagan Administration.
Hey, just “business as usual” for a GOP Supremes’ majority that has checked the Constitution and their humanity at the door in their haste to “deconstruct America” and reconstitute it as the White Nationalist authoritarian state that the Trump regime embodies. Heck, corporations and guns have more rights that dead Mexican kids and their families under the majority‘s view. “Not their kids” as I’ve noted before. I do suspect that if members of their own families were being shot and killed by CBP, we would have a different result in cases like this. But, out of sight, out of mind. Wow, think of the potential foreign relations nightmare of CBP Agents stopped killing unarmed Mexican kids from our side of the border!
Not to be outdone by the majority’s legal gibberish cloaking moral abdication, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas wrote separately to signal Trump that they would like to do away with Bivens entirely while in the process of rewriting the laws in Trump’s image. Apparently recognizing that the GOP has effectively stymied Congress and that Trump intends to inflict many more legal and Constitutional abuses on the unfortunate non-white population, they would like to eliminate all restraints on the regime’s constant violations of law and abuses of individual rights. Obviously, from their exalted and privileged positions above the Constitutional, legal, and societal chaos affecting less fortunate individuals under the Trump regime, they haven‘t fully thought through want happens when Trump or the next White Nationalist demagogue comes for them and there is neither a rule or law nor anyone left to enforce it in a fair an impartial manner.
I’m not the only one who understands the ugly truth about the future of all of our individual rights and the lives of nonwhite individuals (citizens or not) that the Trump majority on the Supremes are attempting to hide with their opaque, yet lethal, legal gobbledygook. Ian Millhiser over at Vox News also sees though the smokescreen at what’s really happening here: “The Supreme Court just held that a border guard who shot a child will face no consequences” https://apple.news/AWWSBpk_aR6uAlmxmQIvZkw
As we’re finding out anew every day, the law and fair, impartial, and courageous judging is for suckers!
Kevin has already posted about Baby Jails, the new book from immprof Philip G. Schrag (Georgetown) that explores the detention of migrant children.
I write today as someone who recently devoured this book. Let me start by telling you two things about myself: I hate flying and I am not much of a fan of nonfiction books. Combining these two things, I tend to read a riveting YA novel while flying in an effort to distract myself from how many feet I am unnaturally suspended above the earth’s surface. Yet I recently read Schrag’s book over the course of 3 flights. It was utterly engrossing.
The book is jam-packed with law and yet manages to read like a narrative. You get a feel for characters (Jenny Flores, certain attorneys and judges) and find yourself rooting from the sidelines even as you know victories will frequently fail to live up to their promise.
The book included numerous vignettes and insights that were entirely new to me. For example, did you know Ed Asner was responsible for Flores’ legal representation? Yes, the grumpy old man from Pixar’s Up set out to help his housekeeper’s daughter who was housed with Flores and connected the young women with Peter Schey, founder of the National Center for Immigrants’ Rights (now the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law).
Here’s another one: Leon Fresco represented the government in a 2015 lawsuit brought by Schey to enforce the Flores settlement — arguing that the settlement didn’t apply to children traveling with parents and that the agreement was “no longer equitable.” Leon Fresco! I wrote about him a few years back — he was a key player in the failed 2013 comprehensive immigration reform led by the Gang of Eight.
I’m also impressed by how comprehensive the book is. I recently spoke to a friend who is on the cusp of publishing a book and we talked about how, at some point in the writing process, the publisher will charge by the word for additions of any kind. Yet Schrag’s book must have been edited and added upon right up until the last moment of publication. There is nothing of current import that is left behind (remain in Mexico, asylum cooperation agreements, third country transit).
This book is marvelous. A tour de force. I recommend it to everyone — even terrified flyers. Instead of gasping at every bump in the jet stream you’ll be scribbling away in the margins, furious at what our nation has done to children in the name of immigration enforcement.
-KitJ
*****************************
Thanks, Phil & KitJ, my friends and colleagues. Both of you are amazing inspirations to all of us in the “New Due Process Army.”
The Trump regime seeks to take child abuse many steps further to effectively “repeal by administrative fiat” all asylum protection laws, to insure that as many families and children as possible suffer, die. or are forced to remain in life-threatening conditions outside the U.S., and to abandon any effective cooperative efforts to improve conditions in “refugee sending” countries.
Meanwhile, many complicit Article III Judges (U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee being a notable exception) simply “look the other way” — not THIER kids and families being tortured and killed, so who cares what happens to them — and a depressing segment of the U.S. public just doesn’t care that the Trump regime is putting America among the most notable international human rights abusers. After all, THEY have jobs, THEIR kids aren’t the Trump regime’s targets (yet), and the stock market is going up. So, who cares what dehumanization, intentional human rights abuses, and violations of legal norms are taking place in their name?
Still, I think that Phil, Kit, the Round Table, and many other members of our “New Due Process Army” are clearly “on the right side of history” here. It’s just tragic that so many innocent folks, many of them children, will have to die or be irreparably harmed before America finally comes to its senses and restores morality and human values to our government.
We’ve got a chance to “right the ship” this November. Don’t blow it!
Due Process Forever; Government Child Abusers & Their Enablers Never!
Dead Refugee Child Washes Ashore in Turkey — Stephen Miller Hopes To Kill More Refugees in The AmericasMr. & Mrs. Stephen Miller Look Forward to Planning Together for More “Crimes Against Humanity” Targeting World’s Most Vulnerable Refugees
“KILLER ON THE ROAD” – EMBOLDENED BY THE COMPLICITY OF THE “ROBERTS’ COURT,” GOP ABDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, & BREAKDOWN OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND VALUES, REGIME APPARENTLY PLANNING EXTRALEGAL MOVE TO KILL MORE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE REFUGEES – Refugee Women, Children, LGBTQ Community, Victims Of Government-Enabled Gangs Said To Among Targets of Miller/Trump White Nationalist “American Death Squads!”
“There’s a killer on the road His brain is squirmin’ like a toad Take a long holiday Let your children play If ya give this man a ride Sweet memory will die Killer on the road, yeah”
— From “Riders on the Storm” by The Doors (1971)
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Feb. 24, 2019
I have been getting “unverified hearsay” reports from Courtside readers and others across the country that an emboldened and now totally unrestrained Trump regime actively is planning an all-out extralegal, extrajudicial onslaught against established asylum laws. It’s likely to claim the lives of many of the most vulnerable and deserving asylum seekers in the United States.
Predictably, this atrocious attack on humanity and human dignity is the “brainchild” of newly married neo-fascist White Nationalist hate monger Stephen Miller. Although unconfirmed, these reports have come from diverse enough sources and sound so consistent with the regime’s nativist, xenophobic approach to asylum that I, for one, give them credence. It’s time to start sounding the alarm for the regime’s latest vile assault on the rule of law and our common humanity!
I have gleaned that there is a 200-page anti-asylum screed floating around the bowels of the regime’s immigration bureaucracy representing more or less the nativist version of the “final solution” for asylum seekers. The gist of this monumental effort boils down along these lines:
[W]ould ban the grant of asylum claims involving PSGs defined solely by criminal activity, terrorist activity, persecutory actions, presence in country with generally high crime rates, attempted recruitment by criminal, terrorist, persecutors, perception of wealth, interpersonal disputes which government were not aware of or involved in and do not extend countrywide; private criminal acts which government was not aware of and do not extend countrywide; status as returned from U.S. and gender. Note the inclusion of “gender” at the end.
Thus, in one “foul swoop” the regime would illegally: 1) strip women and the LGBTQ community of their decades-long, hard-won rights to protection under asylum laws; 2) eliminate the current rebuttable regulatory “presumption of countrywide future persecution” for those who have suffered past persecution; 3) reverse decades of well-established U.S. and international rulings that third party actions that the government was unwilling or unable to protect against constitute persecution; and 4) encourage adjudicators to ignore the legal requirement to consider “mixed motivation” in deciding asylum cases.
There is neither legal nor moral justification for this intentional distortion and rewriting of established human rights principles. Indeed, in my experience of more than two decades as a judge at both the appellate and trial levels, a substantial number, perhaps a majority, of the successful asylum and/or withholding of removal claims in Immigration Court involved non-governmental parties and/or gender-based “particular social groups.” They were some of the clearest, most deserving, and easiest to grant asylum cases coming before the Immigration Courts.
At the “pre-Trump” Arlington Immigration Court, many of these cases were so well-documented and clearly “grantable” that they were “pre-tried” by the parties and moved up on my docket by “joint motion” for “short hearing” grants. This, in turn, encouraged and rewarded multiparty cooperation and judicial efficiency. It was “due process with efficiency, in action.”
Consequently, in addition to its inherent lawlessness, cruelty, and intentional inhumanity, the regime’s proposed actions will stymie professional cooperation between parties and inhibit judicial efficiency. This is just one of many ways in which the regime has used a combination of wanton cruelty and “malicious incompetence” to artificially “jack up” the Immigration Court backlog to over 1.3 million pending and “waiting” cases, even with the hiring of hundreds of additional Immigration Judges.
In a functioning democracy, with an independent judiciary, staffed by judges with knowledge, integrity, and courage, you might expect a timely judicial intervention to block this impending legal travesty and humanitarian disaster as soon as it becomes effective. But, as Justice Sotomayor recently pointed out in a blistering dissent, Chief Justice Roberts and his four GOP colleagues appear to have “tilted” in favor of the regime.
They can’t roll over and bend the laws fast enough to “greenlight” each new immigrant-bashing gimmick instituted by the regime. Moreover, as I’m sure is intended, once these new anti-asylum regulations are railroaded into force, the USCIS Asylum Offices will deny “credible fear” in nearly all cases, thus preventing most asylum applicants from even getting a day in court to properly challenge the regulations. All this will happen while the life-tenured Article III Courts look the other way.
For Stephen Miller, the coming Armageddon for defenseless asylum seekers must represent the ultimate triumph of fascism over democracy, hate over reason, and racism over tolerance. Miller was recently quoted in a New Yorker article about how screwing asylum applicants, and presumably knowing that they and their families would suffer and die, be tortured, or be otherwise harmed by his unlawful acts, was, in effect, his “life’s dream.” “It’s just that this is all I care about. I don’t have a family. I don’t have anything else. This is my life,” said Miller after a meeting in which he had promoted a fraudulent “Safe Third Country Agreement” with El Salvador, a country he acknowledged was without a functioning asylum system.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/stephen-miller-immigration-this-is-my-life.html.
It appears that even Miller’s forlorn “love life” has taken an upturn. Although the Trump Administration has been a “coming out party” for racists, White Nationalists, and White Supremacists of all stripes, the “hater dater circuit” has remained somewhat “restricted.” Evidently, not everyone “gets off” on the chance to get “up close and personal” with “wannabe war criminals.”
Nevertheless, in the middle of all the suffering he has caused, Miller finally found somebody who apparently hates and despises humanity just as much as he does, in Vice Presidential Press Secretary Katie Waldman. They were recently married at the Trump Hotel in D.C. with the “Hater-in-Chief” himself attending the festivities. How can America “get any greater,” particularly if you have the good fortune not to be a refugee condemned to rape, torture, abuse, family separation, beatings, disfiguration, burning, cutting, extortion or other horribles by this cruel, scofflaw, and “maliciously incompetent” regime?
When critics reach for analogies to describe Donald Trump — or look for examples of democratic deterioration — they tend to look abroad. They point to Russia under Vladimir Putin, Hungary under Viktor Orban, or Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump, in this view, is a type — an authoritarian strongman. But it’s a foreign type, and his corrupt administration is seen as alien to the American experience.
This is a little too generous to the United States. It’s not just that we have had moments of authoritarian government — as well as presidents, like John Adams or Woodrow Wilson, with autocratic impulses — but that an entire region of the country was once governed by an actual authoritarian regime. That regime was Jim Crow, a system defined by a one-party rule and violent repression of racial minorities.
The reason this matters is straightforward. Look beyond America’s borders for possible authoritarian futures and you might miss important points of continuity with our own past. Which is to say that if authoritarian government is in our future, there’s no reason to think it won’t look like something we’ve already built, versus something we’ve imported.
Americans don’t usually think of Jim Crow as a kind of authoritarianism, or of the Jim Crow South as a collection of authoritarian states. To the extent that there is one, the general view is that the Jim Crow South was a democracy, albeit racist and exclusionary. People voted in elections, politicians exchanged power and institutions like the press had a prominent place in public life.
There’s a strong case to be made that this is wrong. “To earn the moniker,” argues the political scientist Robert Mickey in “Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944-1972,” “democracies must feature free and fair elections, the safeguarding of rights necessary to sustain such elections — such as freedoms of assembly, association, and speech — and a state apparatus sufficiently responsive to election winners and autonomous from social and economic forces that these elections are meaningful.”
By that standard, the Jim Crow South was not democratic. But does that make it authoritarian? A look at the creation of Jim Crow can help us answer the question.
JAMELLE BOUIE’S NEWSLETTERDiscover overlooked writing from around the internet, and get exclusive thoughts, photos and reading recommendations from Jamelle. Sign up here.
Jim Crow did not emerge immediately after the Compromise of 1877 — in which Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South in return for the presidency — and the end of Reconstruction. It arose, instead, as a response to a unique set of political and economic conditions in the 1890s.
By the start of the decade, the historian C. Vann Woodward argued in his influential 1955 book “The Strange Career of Jim Crow,” opposition to “extreme racism” had relaxed to the point of permissiveness. External restraining forces — “Northern liberal opinion in the press, the courts, and the government” — were more concerned with reconciling the nation than securing Southern democracy. And within the South, conservative political and business elites had abandoned restraint in the face of a radical challenge from an agrarian mass movement.
Mickey notes how the Farmers’ Alliance and Populist Party “clashed with state and national Democratic parties on major economic issues, including debt relief for farmers and the regulation of business.” What’s more, “A Colored Farmers’ Alliance grew rapidly as well, and held out the possibility of biracial coalition-building.” This possibility became a reality in states like Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina, where Populists joined with a majority-black southern Republican Party to support common lists of candidates in “fusion” agreements against an explicitly elitist and white supremacist Democratic Party. Populists and Republicans won their greatest victories in that era in North Carolina, where they captured the state legislature and governor’s mansion, as well as local and county offices.
Democrats, among them large landowners and “New South” industrialists, responded with violence. Democratic paramilitary organizations — called “Red Shirts” — attacked Populist and Republican voters, suppressing the vote throughout the state. In Republican-controlled Wilmington, N.C., writes Mickey, “Democratic notables launched a wave of violence and killings of Republicans and their supporters, black and white, to take back the state’s largest city; hundreds fled for good.”
This basic pattern repeated itself throughout the South for the next decade. Working through the Democratic Party, conservative elites “repressed Populists, seized control of the state apparatus, and effectively ended credible partisan competition.” They rewrote state constitutions to end the vote for blacks as well as substantially restrict it for most whites. They gerrymandered states to secure the political power of large landowners, converted local elective offices into appointed positions controlled at the state level, “and further insulated state judiciaries from popular input.” This could have been stopped, but the North was tired of sectional conflict, and the courts had no interest in the rights of blacks or anyone else under the boot of the Democrats.
The southern Democratic Party didn’t just control all offices and effectively staff the state bureaucracy. It was gatekeeper to all political participation. An aspiring politician could not run for office, much less win and participate in government, without having it behind him. “What is the state?” asked one prominent lawyer during Louisiana’s 1898 Jim Crow constitutional convention, aptly capturing the dynamic at work, “It is the Democratic Party.” Statehood was conflated with party, writes Mickey, “and party disloyalty with state treason.”
Southern conservatives beat back Populism and biracial democracy to build a one-party state and ensure cheap labor, low taxes, white supremacy and a starkly unequal distribution of wealth. It took two decades of disruption — the Great Depression, the Great Migration and the Second World War — to even make change possible, and then another decade of fierce struggle to bring democracy back to the South.
It’s not that we can’t learn from the experiences of other countries, but that our past offers an especially powerful point of comparison. Many of the same elements are in play, from the potent influence of a reactionary business elite to a major political party convinced of its singular legitimacy. A party that has already weakened our democracy to protect its power, and which shows every sign of going further should the need arise. A party that stands beside a lawless president, shielding him from accountability while he makes the government an extension of his personal will.
I’m not saying a new Jim Crow is on the near horizon (or the far one, for that matter). But if we look at the actions of the political party and president now in power, if we think of how they would behave with even more control over the levers of the state, then we might be on a path that ends in something that is familiar from our past — authoritarian government with a democratic facade.
*************************
“[T]he courts had no interest in the rights of blacks or anyone else under the boot of the [Jim Crow] Democrats.”
******************************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
*************************
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.
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:
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!”
TUCSON — A federal judge in Tucson ruled that the temporary U.S. Border Patrol holding facilities for migrants detained in southeastern Arizona, sometimes known as hieleras or iceboxes,”are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution.”
U.S. District Judge David Bury issued his ruling on Wednesday granting plaintiffs a permanent injunction with additional requirements for Border Patrol.
The ruling follows a seven-day trial last month detailing overcrowding, inadequate food and medical care, as well as prolonged detention for migrants arrested in the Tucson Sector, which covers Cochise, Santa Cruz and Pima counties.
“The Plaintiffs, who are civil detainees in (Customs and Border Protection) holding cells, face conditions of confinement after 12 hours which are substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison,” the judge’s ruling said.
Bury said the “undisputed” evidence showed criminal inmates in jails and even migrants in longer-term civil detention are kept in better conditions than migrants in Border Patrol custody, including “an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep,” a second layer of clothing to keep warm, and a greater variety of food beyond frozen burritos, juice and crackers.
As part of the permanent injunction, the court ordered the Border Patrol to not hold migrants who have already been processed for more than 48 hours after they were initially booked.
The only circumstances under which Border Patrol can hold migrants for an extra 24 hours is “unless and until CBP can provide conditions of confinement that meet detainees’ basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessment performed by a medical professional,” Bury said.
By law, the Border Patrol is allowed to hold migrants for up to 72 hours at its holding facilities before transferring them to another federal agency, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
During the trial, Border Patrol officials testified about the challenges they face in meeting that legal standard.
The average time in custody for migrants in 2019 was nearly 54 hours, according to the agency. But of the nearly 63,000 migrants processed in the Tucson Sector that year, more than 12,000 were held longer than the 72 hours allowed.
In 2016, Bury issued an injunction requiring Border Patrol officials in Tucson to provide clean sleeping mats and Mylar blankets to migrants held for longer than 12 hours.
The court added requirements forbidding migrants from sleeping around toilet areas of holding cells, noting that “being forced to sleep in a toilet area due to overcrowding offends the notions of common decency; it is unsanitary and degrading for all detainees who either have to sleep in the toilet area or try to use the toilet when others are sleeping there,” the ruling stated.
One of the witnesses during the trial, a 20-year-old woman from Honduras, described her experience in Border Patrol detention in April 2019. Identified as Witness B, the woman was pregnant at the time and talked about how she was nauseous and vomiting while in detention.
During the time she was in custody, she slept in a holding room so crowded that the only space to lay down was next to the toilet, she described on Wednesday during a conference call where she was joined by the attorneys who represented her in the case.
“That whole night I was vomiting, I felt really sick. I was very worried because I didn’t know how my baby was doing,” the woman said. “Then they took me to the hospital, there they treated me and they told me that my baby was doing OK.”
After she was released from the hospital, agents returned her to a holding cell, where she said she continued feeling sick. Agents didn’t give her the medication doctors had prescribed until the morning she left the Border Patrol facility, she said.
Bury’s ruling notably found no evidence that Border Patrol’s parent agency, Customs and Border Protection, had purposely created the punitive conditions. Instead, he pointed out that the agency has stretched resources to “provide the best conditions” under current circumstances.
“A presumption, however, exists that the challenged conditions of confinement are punitive because, in the context of CBP operations, there is no legitimate governmental interest for the extended detentions currently occurring at CBP facilities,” the ruling said.
The judge further defined what type of showers Border Patrol needs to allow migrants to take. “A shower is a bath in which water is showered (as in to wet with a spray, fine stream, or drops) on the body,” the ruling said. “A ‘paper-shower’ or ‘shower-wipe,’ by definition, is not a shower.”
Border Patrol officials from the Tucson Sector did not respond to a request for comment.
The legal advocacy groups and private law firms that filed the lawsuit in 2015 celebrated Bury’s decision Wednesday, pointing to potential implications beyond the Tucson Sector.
“What the Constitution requires for individuals who are held in a pre-trial capacity, that has a much broader implication,” said Caroline Walters of the American Immigration Council, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. “What the judge’s decision did today is sort of lay the groundwork for what these minimum standards should be.”
Walters said the group expects to hear more detail from Bury about implementing his permanent injunction.
“After several years we’re seeing that CBP has not changed the way that it treats people in confinement unless a court orders it,” said Alvaro Huerta, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “And so we’re ecstatic that the court has finally recognized and made CBP change the way that it’s going to do its work.”
The Honduran woman who testified in court said she felt good knowing her testimony helped convince the judge to require the U.S. government to improve conditions for migrants like her.
“A lot of people from my country are still coming here because of the situation we are going through in my country,” she said. “So I feel really happy knowing that they will have better conditions.”
Vice President Mike Pence toured a Border Patrol facility in Texas after reports that migrants detained are being held in dangerous conditions. USA TODAY
So, under Trump we treat asylum seekers worse than convicted criminals. But, don’t worry. Enabled by the Article III Courts, the regime is reducing the Gulag population and shrinking “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” by simply abrogating asylum laws and the Constitution and sending folks to Guatemala, a dangerous country with no functioning asylum system, where they won’t get a fair chance to apply for asylum and will either be forced back to the countries they fled or forced to fend for themselves in a failed state. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/remain-in-mexico-deportation-asylum-guatemala/2020/02/20/9c29f53e-4eb7-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html
Some might survive, some won’t. But, we don’t really care because it’s “out of sight, out of mind.”
I actually think that Judge Bury got part of this case wrong by incorrectly absolving the Border Patrol of intentionally abusing these individuals. Wrong! Essentially, this is the old “Good enough for Government work” cop out.
There are always alternatives to unconstitutional and punitive detention. The most obvious being releasing folks on bond if there is no constitutionally compliant alternative. Like other Government employees, Border Patrol Officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. When tasked by the regime with carrying out Constitutional abuses, they actually have a duty to “just say no” even if that means resigning their jobs.
And, on a larger scale, it’s clear that the regime has chosen to waste money on unneeded and unauthorized walls, unneeded detention, frivolous legal actions, and details of Border Patrol personnel to punish cities that won’t go along with some of their unlawful behavior. That money could and should have been used to improve detention conditions to meet constitutional minimums. In simple terms, the regime made a conscious choice to violate the Constitution as part of its illegal and immoral “deterrence” program. It’s time for Article III Courts to stop enabling and papering over false, illegal “choices” by a scofflaw Administration.
The head of the Federal Judges Association is taking the extraordinary step of calling an emergency meeting to address the intervention in politically sensitive cases by President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, the Philadelphia-based judge who heads the voluntary association of around 1,100 life-term federal judges, told USA Today that the issue “could not wait.” The association, founded in 1982, ordinarily concerns itself with matters of judicial compensation and legislation affecting the federal judiciary.
Republicans defend Barr as Klobuchar looks forward to testimony
Lawmakers and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway commented Feb. 16 on President Trump’s tweets and the conduct of Attorney General William P. Barr. (The Washington Post)
On Sunday, more than 1,100 former Justice Department employees released a public letter calling on Barr to resign over the Stone case.
A search of news articles since the group’s creation revealed nothing like a meeting to deal with the conduct of a president or attorney general.
Rufe, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, could not be reached for comment late Monday.
The action follows a week of turmoil that included the president tweeting his outrage over the length of sentence recommended by career federal prosecutors for his friend Roger Stone and the decision by Barr to withdraw that recommendation.
In between, Trump singled out the judge in the Stone case, Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, for personal attacks, accusing her of bias and spreading a falsehood about her record.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe said to USA Today. “We’ll talk all this through.”
Trump began disparaging federal judges who have ruled against his interests before he took office, starting with U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. After Curiel ruled against Trump in 2016 in a pair of lawsuits detailing predatory marketing practices at Trump University in San Diego, Trump described him as “a hater of Donald Trump,” adding that he believed the Indiana-born judge was “Mexican.”
Trump keeps lashing out at judges
President Trump has a history of denouncing judges over rulings that have negatively affected him personally as well as his administration’s policies. (Drea Cornejo/The Washington Post)
Faced with more than 100 adverse rulings in the federal courts, Trump has continued verbal attacks on judges.
Rufe’s comments gave no hint of what the association could or would do in response.
Some individual judges have already spoken out critically about Trump’s attacks generally, among them U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, a colleague of Jackson’s in Washington, and most recently, the chief judge of the court in Washington, Beryl A. Howell.
*******************
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Will Trump & Barr eventually separate Article III Judges’ families or send them to danger zones in Mexico or the Northern Triangle to “deter” rulings against the regime? Will Mark Morgan and Chad Wolf then declare “victory?” Will their families be scattered to various parts of the “New American Gulag” with no plans to reunite them? Will they be put on trial for their lives without access to lawyers? Are there costs for failing to take a “united stand” for the rule of law, Constitutional Due Process, human rights, and the human dignity of the most vulnerable among us?
Why does it take the case of a lifetime sleaze-ball like Roger Stone to get the “life-tenured ones” to “wake up” to the attacks on humanity and the rule of law going on under noses for the past three years?
The Freudian concept of psychological projection refers to the behavior of people who, unable to acknowledge their own weaknesses, ascribe those same failings to others. President Trump provides a striking example in his multiple post-impeachment rants calling those who sought his removal “vicious” and “mean.” His choice of the word “mean” caught my attention, because I’ve been thinking for some time now that the United States has become a mean country.
There has been meanness, and worse, in the world, of course, long before there was a President Trump. But it doesn’t require suffering from the agitation of Trump derangement syndrome to observe that something toxic has been let loose during these past three years.
Much of it has to do with immigration: the separation of families at the border and the effort to terminate DACA, the program that protects from deportation undocumented young people brought to the United States as children. Removing this protection for hundreds of thousands of productive “Dreamers,” now pursuing higher education or holding jobs (or both), is an obvious lose-lose proposition for the country. It is also simply mean.
And the meanness radiates out from Washington. The mayor of Springfield, Mass., one of the biggest cities in one of the bluest states, has taken the president up on his offer to let local officials veto the resettlement of refugees in their communities. Tennessee enacted a law to cut off state money to cities that declare themselves “sanctuaries” from federal immigration enforcement. (At the same time more than a dozen counties in Tennessee have endorsed a growing “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement for gun rights.)
The meanness spreads to the lowest ranks of the country’s judiciary. USA Today reported two weeks ago that a common pleas judge in Hamilton County, Ohio, has adopted the practice of summoning ICE whenever he has a “hunch” that the defendant standing before him is an undocumented immigrant. “I’m batting a thousand. I haven’t got one wrong yet,” Judge Robert Ruehlman boasted.
In the Arizona desert, where thousands of border-crossing migrants have died from exposure and dehydration in the past decade, Border Patrol agents have been filmed kicking over and emptying bottles of water left for the migrants by volunteers. (This practice evidently preceded the Trump administration; the Border Patrol, in its union’s first-ever presidential endorsement, endorsed Mr. Trump’s candidacy in 2016, deeming him “the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed our country.” )
The United States attorney’s office in Tucson has been prosecuting people who enter the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge without a permit to leave lifesaving bottles of water and cans of food along common migratory routes. In 2018, a federal magistrate judge, in a nonjury trial, convicted four people for illegal entry and abandoning property in the desert wilderness. The four are volunteers for No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson.
In their appeal before a federal district judge, Rosemary Márquez, the four invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that their actions were driven by their faith and their belief in the “sanctity of human life.” The government responded that the four had simply “recited” religious beliefs “for the purpose of draping religious garb over their political activity.” (I’m not holding my breath for the Trump administration to similarly ridicule the religious claims of employers who say they can’t possibly include the birth-control coverage in their employee health plans, as the Affordable Care Act requires, lest they become complicit in the sin of contraception.)
The administration met its match in Judge Márquez. On Jan. 31, finding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act barred the prosecution, she overturned the convictions. Her 21-page opinion noted that human remains were regularly found in the area, and she had this to say about that fact:
“The government seems to rely on a deterrence theory, reasoning that preventing clean water and food from being placed on the refuge would increase the risk of death or extreme illness for those seeking to cross unlawfully, which in turn would discourage or deter people from attempting to enter without authorization. In other words, the government claims a compelling interest in preventing defendants from interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death. This gruesome logic is profoundly disturbing.”
The headline on this column promises some thoughts about the Supreme Court, so I’ll now turn to the court. The country’s attention was focused elsewhere two weeks ago when five justices gave the Trump administration precisely what it needed to put into effect one of the most meanspirited and unjustified of all its recent immigration policies. This was the radical expansion of the “public charge” rule, which bars from admission or permanent residency an immigrant who is “likely at any time to become a public charge.”
The concept of “public charge” in itself is nothing new. It was part of the country’s early efforts to control immigration in the late 19th century, where it was used to exclude those likely to end up in the poor house or its equivalent. That historic definition — “primarily dependent on the government for cash assistance or on long-term institutionalization” — was codified in 1999 “field guidance” issued to federal immigration officers.
Last August, the administration put a new definition in place. Any immigrant who receives the equivalent of 12 months of federal benefits within a three-year period will be deemed a public charge, ineligible for permanent residency or a path to citizenship. The designated benefits include nutrition assistance for a child under the SNAP program; receipt of a Section 8 housing voucher or residence in public housing; and medical treatment under Medicaid. The new rule, titled Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, aggregates the benefits — that is, three of the benefits received in a single month count as three months of the 12.
States, cities, and nonprofit organizations around the country promptly filed lawsuits, with varying preliminary outcomes. The plaintiffs argued that the drastic change in definition was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act’s core requirement of “reasoned decision making.”
In October, a federal district judge in New York, George Daniels, ruled in favor of two sets of plaintiffs, one group headed by New York State and the other, a coalition of nonprofit organizations. Judge Daniels noted that the government was “afforded numerous opportunities to articulate a rational basis for equating public charge with receipt of benefits for 12 months within a 36-month period, particularly when this has never been the rule,” but that its lawyers “failed each and every time.” He explained that “where an agency action changes prior policy, the agency need not demonstrate that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one. It must, however, show that there are good reasons for the new policy.”
And Judge Daniels added: “The rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification. It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” Noting that the policy would immediately cause “significant hardship” to “hundreds of thousands of individuals who were previously eligible for admission and permanent residence in the United States,” he issued a nationwide injunction to block its implementation.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put the government’s appeal on a fast track but refused, in the interim, to grant a stay of the injunction. So, predictably, the administration turned to its friends at the Supreme Court and, equally predictably, got what it wanted. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court granted a stay of the injunction to last through a future Supreme Court appeal.
Granting a stay at this point was a breathtaking display of judicial activism. The Second Circuit will hear the case promptly; briefs are due on Friday. More to the point, the court’s summary action, without full appellate review, changes the lives of untold numbers of people for the worse, people who immigrated legally to the United States and who have followed every rule. Being kicked off the path to citizenship puts them directly on the path to deportation, without any explanation from the highest court in the land of why this should be the case.
Of the five justices in the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — only Justices Gorsuch and Thomas deigned to write anything. In a four-page concurring opinion, they made clear their determination to hold up this case, Department of Homeland Security v. New York, as an example of “the gamesmanship and chaos” that they said was attendant on “the rise of nationwide injunctions.”
I don’t remember such hand-wringing a few years back when anti-immigrant states found a friendly judge in South Texas to issue a nationwide injunction against President Barack Obama’s expansion of the DACA program to include parents of the “Dreamers.” The Supreme Court let that injunction stand.
Do the justices realize how they are being played? I started this column by mentioning psychological projection, a distorted view of others engendered by a distorted view of oneself. That’s Donald Trump, seeing himself the innocent victim of attacks from vicious and mean people. There’s another kind of projection, the image reflected when light strikes a mirror. Who do these five justices see when they look in their mental mirrors? Could it be Donald Trump?
*************************************
Eventually, the New Due Process Army will win the war to restore justice, Due Process, and the rule of law to our Republic. And one of the lessons should be: Better Federal Judges driven by fairness, scholarship, practicality, compassion, kindness, respect for all persons, and the courage to speak out for the rights of the people against tyranny and corruption.
In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.
— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)
How soon we forget!
Yes, Linda, I think the Supremes’ Justices and other Article IIIs who aid the “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of migrants, asylum seekers, and “the other” by the regime know full well that they are “being played.” They are willing, sometimes as in the case of the recent totally gratuitous nonsense about targeting nationwide injunctions flowing off the pens of Gorsuch and Thomas actually eager, to “go along to get along” — even when it often means hanging braver lower court colleagues who had the courage to speak truth to power and stand up to tyranny “out to dry.”
Like judges during the Jim Crow era and other disastrous episodes of legal history, they think they can hide out in their ivory towers behind legal gobbledygook that most first-years law students can recognize as the nonsense “cop out” that it is. They also knowingly and intentionally betray the legions of courageous, ethical lawyers, many working pro bono in dangerous and unhealthy conditions, to uphold the rule of law in America and to defend human rights and human decency.
Hopefully, our Republic will survive this dark time, and these folks “working at the retail level,” many “charter members” of the New Due Process Army, will form the core of a future, better judiciary that will put Due Process and humanity first, above party loyalty and bizarre, often nonsensical, right wing theories used to justify lawlessness, injustice, unfairness, and invidious discrimination.
Even before he was hired as Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr made it clear that he would be acting as the president’s lackey first and the chief lawyer for the United States second, having auditioned for the role by sending an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department calling the Russia inquiry “fatally misconceived” and describing Robert Mueller’s actions as “grossly irresponsible.” Since then, Barr has told Congress it’s perfectly okay for the president to instruct aides to lie to investigators, suggested that Mueller’s report fully exonerated Trump, which of course it did not, and attempted to bury the “urgent“ whistle-blower report that became the basis of the House’s impeachment proceedings.
Now, if it were up to Barr, he’d happily carry on doing the president’s dirty work, but for one problem: Trump, with his flapping yap and quick trigger finger, has been making it a little too obvious that the DOJ, in its current form, exists to punish his enemies and spare his friends. The most recent example of this, of course, came this week, when the president tweeted, at 1:48 a.m., that the sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years for his longtime pal Roger Stone was “horrible,” “very unfair,” and a “miscarriage of justice.” Then, after Barr’s DOJ intervened with a new filing calling for a much lighter sentence—which prompted the four prosecutors on the case to withdraw from it—the president tweeted his thanks, congratulating the attorney general on getting involved in matters relevant to his personal interests.
For many people long aware of Barr’s status as a boot-licking hack, this was a bridge too far. The calls for him to resign or be impeached were swift. And they got so bad that on Thursday, the attorney general felt compelled to sit down with ABC News and send the message to the president that if he’d like the DOJ to continue to do his dirty work, he needs to stop tweeting about it. Do criminals tell their social-media followers “Check out this sweet scam I just pulled”? No! Of course, rather than stating directly that the president’s penchant for telling the world about the many ways he’s corrupted the government have made it difficult for that corruption to continue, Barr had to pretend his comments were all about ensuring the DOJ’s independence, which would be a funny, not-at-all-believable thing for him to start caring about now.
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody….whether it’s Congress, newspaper editorial boards, or the president,” Bill Barr tells @ABC News.
“I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody,” Barr insisted to ABC News chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas. “Whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president. I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know…I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.” Just in case that extremely obvious hint was lost on its intended audience, Barr added: “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.”
Maybe it’s not the tweets damaging his integrity but the nakedly partisan and quasi-legal decisions he’s made on the tweeter’s behalf?Just a thought.
Asked about the decision to reverse the sentencing recommendation for Stone, Barr insisted that it definitely had nothing to do with the guy being a longtime friend of Trump’s, claiming that he came to the unbiased conclusion on his own that the seven-to-nine-years call was excessive and that he was planning to file an update even before Trump tweeted about it being “horrible and unfair.” (He was not asked about the NBC News report that he additionally removed a U.S. attorney from her post for failing to punish Trump’s enemy Andrew McCabe, or that the Justice Department also intervened to change the sentencing recommendation for convicted criminal and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.)
Barr said Trump’s middle-of-the-night tweet put him in a bad position. He insists he had already discussed with staff that the sentencing recommendation was too long. “Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back because of the tweet? And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be,” he said.
Barr also told ABC he was “a little surprised” that the entire Stone prosecution team had resigned from the case—and one from the DOJ entirely—which presumably has something to do with the fact that after using your department to do the president’s bidding for so long, you sometimes forget that other people will take issue with such behavior.
Asked if he expected Trump to react to his criticism of the tweets, Barr responded: “I hope he will react.”
“And respect it?” Thomas asked.
“Yes,” Barr said. You hear that, Mr. President? Let the man turn the judicial branch into your own personal score-settling operation in peace!
Even smart folks like The NY Times’David Leonhardt are babbling about, perhaps, giving Billy “the benefit of the doubt.” Come on, man!
As BessLevin points out, Barr’s faithfully been doing Trump’s “dirty work” for him since even before he set foot inside the DOJ again. It’s not like he’s suddenly had a “moral awakening” or discovered human decency.
No, Trump is the “unitary Executive” that Billy and some of his GOP righty neo-fascists have always salivated over. But, understandably he’d prefer more privacy as he deconstructs the DOJ and undermines fair and impartial justice, including, of course, further trashing the Immigration Courts that, incredible as it might seem in a country that actually has a written Constitution supposedly guaranteeing Due Process to “all persons,” belong exclusively to him.
Remarkably, and quite stunningly to anyone who has actually studied the law, the Article III Courts, all the way up to the feckless Supremes, have gone along with this absurd charade. You get the message: Immigrants, migrants, and asylum seekers aren’t really “persons” at all. They have been dehumanized by the regime and “Dred Scottified” by the Article IIIs.
There is no particular legal rationale or justification for this ongoing miscarriage of justice. It’s just a matter of enough folks in black robes being too cowardly or self-absorbed, or maybe in a few cases too ignorant, to stand up for the Constitutional and human rights of the most vulnerable among us.
To paraphrase an expression from the world of religion: “What would Jesus think about this blindness to human suffering?” Nothing good, I’m sure!
If he’s actually out there among us today, he’s undoubtedly among those suffering in the regime’s “New American Gulag” or waiting in squalor along the Mexican border for a “fixed hearing” that’s probably never going to happen anyway. I know where he isn’t: among the sign waving crazies shouting hateful slogans glorifying human rights abuses at the “hate fests” z/k/a “Trump rallies!”
In Immigration Court, the conflicts of interest and threats to human decency aren’t just “implied” or “apparent.” They are very real, and they are destroying real human lives, even killing innocent folks, every day.
And, unlike U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, whose life tenure allows her to “ignore the noise and do what she thinks is right” (as Trump’s GOP toadies love to point out), Immigration Judges are “wholly owned commodities” of Billy and the regime: disposable, subservient, and told to “follow orders.” They can’t even schedule their own cases without political interference, let alone apply the law in a way that conflicts with Billy’s unethical precedents or those entered by his “wholly owned appellate body,” the Board of Immigration Appeals!
The latter has recently gone out of its way to show total subservience to the regime’s White Nationalist anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant agenda. Indeed, they have even drawn the ire of at least one conservative GOP-appointed Article III Judge by contemptuously disobeying a direct court order in favor of a footnote in a letter from the Attorney General.
“Shocking” as this professional malpractice and contempt for the justice system might be to those journalists and former DOJ employees who haven’t been paying attention, it’s nothing new to those of us involved in immigration. For the last three years, the regime has been actively and unethically “gaming” the unconstitutional Immigration “Court” system against the very migrants and asylum seekers whose legal rights and human dignity they are actually supposed to be protecting!How is this “just OK?”
Feckless Article III Courts have largely “gone along to get along,” although they might be showing less patience now that the scofflaw actions and disrespectful attitudes promoted by Billy and his predecessor “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions are directed at them personally rather than just screwing vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers.
While it’s nice that at least some Article III Judges are finally reacting to being “given the finger” by Barr, Trump, and their gang of White Nationalist thugs, outrage at their own disrespectful treatment pales in comparison with the death, torture, rape, extortion, and the other parade of horribles being inflicted daily on vulnerable migrants by the Immigration “Courts” and the human rights criminals in the Trump regime while the Article IIIs fail to step in and save lives.
In the end of the day, as history will eventually show, human lives, which are the key to the “rule of law,” will prove to be more important than “hurt feelings” among the Article III “lifers” or the kind of legal gobbledygook (much of it on “jurisdiction” which often translates into “task avoidance”) that Article IIIs, particularly those from the right wing, like to throw around to obscure their legal tone-deafness and moral failings from their fellow humans.
Due Process Forever; Complicity in the Face of Tyranny Never!
