Supreme Court – Page 65 – immigrationcourtside.com

Problems Mount For Administration On Travel Ban — Can’t Find Support For Their “Pre-Hatched” Conclusions — Stephen Miller Shoots Off Mouth Again — DOJ Litigators Undoubtedly Cringe As In-Court Statements Undermined!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-new-travel-ban-with-mostly-minor-technical-differences-that-probably-wont-cut-it-analysts-say/2017/02/22/8ae9d7e6-f918-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.e2b487b295a7

Matt Zapotsky writes in the Washington Post:

“Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said President Trump’s revised travel ban will have “mostly minor technical differences” from the iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see “the same basic policy outcome for the country.”

That is not what the Justice Department has promised. And legal analysts say it might not go far enough to allay the judiciary’s concerns.

A senior White House official said Wednesday that Trump will issue a revised executive order on immigration next week, as the administration is working to make sure the implementation goes smoothly. Trump had said previously that the order would come this week. Neither the president nor his top advisers have detailed exactly what the new order will entail. Miller’s comments on Fox News, while vague, seem to suggest the changes might not be substantive. And that could hurt the administration’s bid to lift the court-imposed suspension on the ban, analysts said.

“If you’re trying to moot out litigation, which is to say, ‘Look, this litigation is no longer necessary,’ it is very bad to say our intent here is to engage in the prohibited outcome,” said Leon Fresco, who worked in the office of immigration litigation in President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/02/23/white-house-gives-plenty-of-ammunition-to-travel-bans-opponents/?utm_term=.9442c17ff14b

Jennifer Rubin writes in Right Turn in today’s Washington Post:

“Opponents of President Trump’s travel ban have one big advantage — the Trump White House. If not for the confusion, lack of staffing (nary a deputy, let alone an undersecretary or assistant secretary, has been named in national security-related departments), organizational disarray, policy differences or all of the above, the administration might have put together on its first try a legally enforceable executive order. It might by now even have come up with a new executive order, thanks to a road map provided by the 9th Circuit. However, the rollout has been pushed back to next week.

Understand that if this is such a matter of urgent concern, the president would have had his advisers working around the clock on this (not transgender bathroom assignments, plans to deport non-criminal illegal immigrants or haggling with Mexican officials over a wall that Trump insists they pay for). In fact, since the point of the ban is to initiate a review of our vetting procedures, you’d think that the Homeland Security Department would already have come up with its proposed “extreme vetting” recommendations.

Meanwhile, the president and his staff continue to provide legal ammunition to opponents of the ban. On Tuesday, senior adviser Stephen Miller in a Fox News interview boldly declared, “Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court.” Just to remind the courts of the administration’s arrogance, Miller proclaimed that there was nothing wrong with the first order.

“By saying that the policy effects of the new travel ban will be essentially the same as those of the travel ban that so many federal judges found constitutionally suspect, Miller is effectively inviting federal courts to suspend the new one as well, given that the religiously discriminatory history of the ban can’t be ignored, much less erased, simply by purporting to start over again,” Supreme Court litigator and professor Larry Tribe tells me. “If, as I am told, the new ban is a more artfully disguised version of [an] anti-Muslim measure, without explicit preferences for religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries (i.e., for Christians) written into the very text of the ban, then some judges might be less inclined to issue a temporary restraining order, but most federal judges would be savvy enough to recognize that they are being treated to a masquerade.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/index.html

Meanwhile, Jake Tapper and Pamela Brown on CNN highlight more difficulties with the Administration’s “shoot first, ask questions later” approach:

“Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump has assigned the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Justice Department, to help build the legal case for its temporary travel ban on individuals from seven countries, a senior White House official tells CNN.

Other Trump administration sources tell CNN that this is an assignment that has caused concern among some administration intelligence officials, who see the White House charge as the politicization of intelligence — the notion of a conclusion in search of evidence to support it after being blocked by the courts. Still others in the intelligence community disagree with the conclusion and are finding their work disparaged by their own department.
“DHS and DOJ are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for these seven countries is substantial and that these seven countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States,” the senior White House official told CNN. “The situation has gotten more dangerous in recent years, and more broadly, the refugee program has been a major incubator for terrorism.”

The report was requested in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Trump administration “has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” The seven counties are Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The senior White House official said the desire to bolster the legal and public case that these seven countries pose a threat is a work in progress and as of now, it’s not clear if DHS and DOJ will offer separate reports or a joint report.
One of the ways the White House hopes to make its case is by using a more expansive definition of terrorist activity than has been used by other government agencies in the past. The senior White House official said he expects the report about the threat from individuals the seven countries to include not just those terrorist attacks that have been carried out causing loss of innocent American life, but also those that have resulted in injuries, as well as investigations into and convictions for the crimes of a host of terrorism-related actions, including attempting to join or provide support for a terrorist organization.
The White House did not offer an on-the-record comment for this story despite numerous requests.

. . . .

Asked about the report Thursday on “The Lead,” Rep. Dan Donovan, R-New York, emphasized that the intelligence community be nonpartisan.
“They should take data, take information, shouldn’t interpret it in a political way and provide the President the information he needs to make decisions to protect our country,” he said.
Also commenting on the report was Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who acknowledged that he hadn’t seen the specifics but “it looks wrong to me.”
“We ought to be doing the intel first, then set the policy and in large part based upon the intelligence,” Haass said. “If these reports are true, it’s yet another example where this administration is having real trouble ing a functional relationship with the intelligence community.”

[Emphasis supplied in all quotes]

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

I was never a “line litigator.” But, I was involved in defending and prosecuting thousands of cases during the “Legacy INS Phase” of my career. I also participated in thousands more cases as an appellate and trial judge during the last 21 years at EOIR.

One of my jobs in providing litigation assistance as the Deputy General Counsel of the INS was to make sure my “institutional clients” did not comment on pending cases. Such comments both unnecessarily antagonized the judges hearing the cases and, on occasion, when folks didn’t heed my instructions, completely “tanked” our positions by giving our opponents new arguments.

As a sitting judge, I can guarantee that one of the least successful approaches was for a lawyer to insult my intelligence or integrity and then turn around and ask me to help out his or her client. Sure, in the end, I had to separate the law from the lawyer and do the right thing. But, it certainly interfered with the effectiveness of the lawyer’s communication and made it more difficult for me to get to the substance of his or her client’s case.

And, one thing that certainly infuriated all judges, including me, was for a lawyer to represent one thing in court and then have his or her client do something else. It made me lose confidence in the lawyer’s reliability and integrity and his or her ability to control and speak for the client. I can remember “chewing out” several lawyers at Master Calendar for misrepresenting facts or law to me in their briefs or oral arguments.

It appears that the Trump Administration’s combination of arrogance, ignorance, and disrespect for the court system and the role of judges is undermining both their credibility and the credibility of the Department of Justice career lawyers whose job is to represent them over and over again before most of the same judges. Once a judge loses faith in the credibility of a lawyer and/or her or his client, “bad things will happen” and they do.

PWS

02/23/17

HuffPost: With Sessions Leading The Charge, Administration Abandons Transgender Children — Cites “States’ Rights” — Traditional Argument For Retrograde Government, Injustice, And Picking On Minorities!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-transgender_us_58ac4fe8e4b0a855d1d9d278?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Amanda Terkel reports:

“President Donald Trump’s administration announced on Wednesday that it will no longer bar schools from discriminating against transgender students, rescinding a policy put in place by the previous administration.

“The prior guidance documents did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice therefore have withdrawn the guidance,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue. The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”

In May, under President Barack Obama, the departments of Education and Justice issued guidance mandating that any school that receives federal money must treat a student’s gender identity as his or her sex. Schools, for example, would therefore have to allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.

The federal government said at the time that transgender students were covered under Title IX, the statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. This interpretation had been on hold, however, after more than a dozen states sued the Obama administration and a judge issued an injunction in August.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was reportedly against rescinding the order and initially resisted signing off on it, but Sessions pushed her to do so because both departments had to agree in order to move forward.

In a statement Wednesday, DeVos said she considered protecting all students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students, “not only a key priority for the Department, but for every school in America.”

“This is an issue best solved at the state and local level. Schools, communities, and families can find ― and in many cases have found ― solutions that protect all students,” she added.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer argued during his press briefing earlier Wednesday that Title IX does not apply to transgender issues because there was no discussion of gender identity when the statute was passed in 1972. Judges and justices, however, often interpret laws and the Constitution to apply to new issues that arise.”

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

Sure didn’t take Jeff Sessions long to prove his critics correct — that he is totally unqualified to hold the job of the nation ‘s chief lawyer and protector of “equal justice for all.” And, as someone from Alabama, with its sordid history of misuse of the rule of law against African Americans, Sessions knows exactly what the code term “States’ Rights” means. At least he made Betsy DeVos look almost, but not quite, good by comparison.

PWS

02/23/17

Supremes Hear Case Today On Cross-Border Application Of U.S. Constitution!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-considers-case-of-a-shot-fired-in-us-that-killed-a-teenager-in-mexico/2017/02/19/c2935c36-f548-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.47f4d29a4b1c

Robert Barnes writes in the Washington Post:

“The gun was fired in the United States. The bullet stopped 60 feet away in Mexico — tragically, in the head of a 15-year-old boy named Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca.

Border patrol agent Jesus Mesa Jr. pulled the trigger that day six years ago in the wide concrete culvert that separates El Paso from Juarez, Mexico. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Constitution gives Hernández’s parents the right to sue Mesa in American courts for killing their son.

The case comes amid a time of increasing tension and controversy over how this country polices the daily churn along the border, where essential international commerce takes place alongside narcotics trafficking and human smuggling.

Courts have struggled to deal with the national security and foreign policy implications of the case, and the Supreme Court’s precedents.

U.S. Border Patrol agent shoots Mexican teenager near border Play Video0:17
In 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. shot and killed 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Hernandez while Hernandez was playing in a culvert separating Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso, Tex. A witness recorded the incident on their cell phone. (Outreach Strategists, LLC)
If Hernández had been killed inside the United States, then the case could proceed. Or if he had been a U.S. citizen, it would not have mattered that Mesa was on one side of the border and he was on the other.

But the courts so far in Hernández’s case have said the Constitution does not reach across the border — even 60 feet — to give rights to those without a previous connection to the United States.”

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

The case is Hernandez v. Mesa, and either way the Court decides, it’s likely to play an important role in the effort to enhance U.S. border enforcement.

PWS

02/21/17

Like It Or Not, Trio Of Cases Now Before The Supremes Will Affect Trump Administration’s Enforcement Program — Issues Involve Long-Term Detention & Liability Of Government Officials

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scotus-trump-immigrants_us_58a70e9be4b037d17d271444?tdoe77ccqm362bj4i

Lawrence Hurley reports in HuffPost:

“The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three cases in coming months that could help or hinder President Donald Trump’s efforts to ramp up border security and accelerate deportations of those in the country illegally.

The three cases, which reached the court before Democratic President Barack Obama left office, all deal broadly with the degree to which non-citizens can assert rights under the U.S. Constitution. They come at a time when the court is one justice short and divided along ideological lines, with four conservatives and four liberals.

The justices will issue rulings before the end of June against the backdrop of high-profile litigation challenging the lawfulness of Trump’s controversial travel ban on people traveling from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The most pertinent of the three cases in terms of Republican Trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants in custody for deportation proceedings have the right to a hearing to request their release when their cases are not promptly adjudicated.

The long-running class action litigation, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of thousands of immigrants detained for more than six months, includes both immigrants apprehended at the border when seeking illegal entry into the United States and legal permanent residents in deportation proceedings because they were convicted of crimes. The case also could affect long-term U.S. residents who entered the country illegally and have subsequently been detained.

The Trump administration has said it wants to end the release of immigrants facing deportation and speed up the process for ejecting them from the country. A decision in the case requiring additional court hearings could have very direct implications for the administration’s plans, said ACLU lawyer Ahilan Arulananthan, especially since immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 500,000cases.

The ACLU estimates that up to 8,000 immigrants nationwide at any given time have been held for at least six months. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official was unable to immediately confirm data on length of detention but said that in fiscal year 2016, the average daily count of detainees was just under 35,000.

“If Trump wants to put more people in deportation but does not increase the number of immigration judges, then people are going to have to wait longer and longer to get a hearing,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School.”

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

I would think that nominating a Solicitor General to be in charge of all Federal litigation, particularly at the Supreme Court level, would be a very high priority for President Trump.

PWS

02-17-17

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

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

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

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

PWS

02/16/17

“Brief Of The Two Steves” — Read The Yale-Loehr/Legomsky Amicus Brief Explaining Immigration Detention Filed With The Supremes in Jennings v. Rodriguez!

Jennings final amicus brief

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interest of amici curiae………………………………………………. 1 Introduction and summary ………………………………………… 2 Argument…………………………………………………………………… 5

Aliens arriving in the United States at a port
of entry…………………………………………………………….6
1. Arriving asylum seekers are detained
  under color of Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii),
  even after an asylum officer has found a credible fear of persecution………………………… 6
  1. Asylum seekers detained under Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) have limited oppor- tunity for review of detention or re-
    lease ……………………………………………………… 7
  2. Aliens seeking asylum may be detained for lengthy periods ……………………………….. 9
2. Arriving aliens who are not subject to expedited removal, but are not “clearly
  and beyond a doubt entitled to be
  admitted,” are detained under color of Section 1225(b)(2)(A)………………………………… 11
Aliens apprehended in the United States………. 13
1. Aliens apprehended in the United States
  but not convicted of a qualifying crime may be detained and are only sometimes permitted a bond hearing pending a
  removal decision ………………………………………. 13
2. Aliens apprehended in the United States
  who are convicted of a qualifying crime are subject to mandatory detention and are
  not provided opportunities for conditional release except in limited circumstances……. 16(I)

Table of Contents—Continued:

Aliens convicted of qualifying crimes are detained under Section 1226(c)…………… 16
Aliens detained under Section 1226(c) are released from detention in only narrow circumstances…………………………………….. 17
Aliens held under Section 1226(c) general- ly are detained for longer periods of time than are other aliens ………………………….. 19

C. Aliens ordered removed are generally detained until the removal order is
executed ………………………………………………….. 21

III. The bond hearing process provides limited procedural rights, which vary across the circuits………………………………………………………….. 22

Aliens detained under Section 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings in certain circumstances………………………………………….. 22
Federal courts have held that aliens
detained under Sections 1225(b), 1226(a),
and 1226(c) are entitled to bond hearings when detention becomes prolonged………….. 28
1. The Ninth and Second Circuits provide for bond hearings for aliens detained
  over six months…………………………………… 30
2. The First, Third, Sixth and Eleventh Cir- cuits provide for bond hearings on a case- by-case basis………………………………………. 31
3. Bond hearings based on prolonged deten- tion are procedurally similar to Section 1226(a) bond hearings ………………………… 32

III

Table of Contents—Continued:

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………33 Appendix…………………………………………………………………..1a

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

This is an absolutely fantastic resource for anyone litigating, writing, speaking, or reporting on immigration detention written by two of the “best in the business.”

Rodriguez could be a problem for the Administration and the Immigration Courts. President Trump’s Executive Orders ramp up border enforcement, interior enforcement, immigration detention, and will further clog the already overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Courts.

If the Supreme Court places time limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals without individual bond hearings pending the completion of Removal Hearings on the merits in Immigration Court, it could lead to an increase in the number of bond hearings conducted by U.S. Immigration Judges. Combined with pressure from the Administration to complete Removal Hearings before bond hearings are required, it likely will lead the Administration to “torque up” the pressure on Immigration Judges to cut corners and expedite hearings without regard to the requirements of due process. This is likely to force the issue of due process in Immigration Court into the Article III Federal Courts for resolution .

PWS

02/14/17

Morning Joe: “Stephen Miller’s weekend performance: That was horrendous and an embarrassment!” — Other Than That, He Loves The Guy!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/joe-scarborough-is-trying-to-make-trump-turn-on-stephen-miller/?utm_term=.8c119ea36330

Callum Borchers Wirtes in “The Fix” in today’s Washington Post:

“Joe Scarborough is trying to use whatever influence he has over Donald Trump to change the president’s mind about Stephen Miller. It hasn’t worked so far.

The MSNBC host previously blamed Miller for mishandling the rollout of the travel ban and on Monday resumed his campaign against Trump’s senior policy adviser, who made a series of breathtakingly forceful statements on the Sunday political talk shows, including:

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
“Sean Spicer, as always, is a hundred percent correct.”
“It is a fact, and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of noncitizens in this country who are registered to vote.”

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

The video clips on this one (see link) are truly amazing. Miller is the “Perfect Storm” of arrogance, ignorance, and intolerance all wrapped into a package of smart-ass, off-putting demeanor, lack of gravitas, and robotic delivery. Hopefully, they never let this guy into a courtroom. Or, perhaps they should . . . .

Come to think of it, I’d love to see him go “toe to toe” with Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Nothing Judge P loves better than being told “who’s in charge.” And, as for the “I’m from the White House come to tell you about your authority, you robed boob” tone, let’s just say it wouldn’t be pretty. On the other hand, couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

PWS

02/13/17

The Hill: N. Rappaport Predicts That Trump Will Have Slam Dunk Win If “Travel Ban” Case Gets To Supremes!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/319212-if-immigration-ban-goes-to-supreme-court-trump-is-is-shoo-in

“Two states challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, in a U.S. District Court. The District Court preliminarily ruled in their favor and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the order.

The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion for an emergency stay to reinstate the order while its appeal from the District Court’s decision proceeds.
The court denied the government’s motion because it was not convinced that the government is likely to prevail on the states’ due process claim when the case is adjudicated on its merits. The court reserved consideration, however, on the states’ religious discrimination claim until the merits of the appeal have been fully briefed.

I have found no merit in the States arguments in support of either of those claims.”

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

Read Nolan’s complete article at the link which gives his reasons for finding both the Due Process and Religious Discrimination Claims under the Constitution without merit. Additionally, Nolan wrote an earlier article in The Hill on February 8, 2017, which I inadvertently missed, expanding upon his views of the nature of Presidential authority in this area:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/318540-exactly-how-much-immigration-authority-does-trump-have-well

I doubt that this case will reach the Supremes in its current posture for four reasons: 1) the Court generally does not review cases at the TRO stage; 2) with only eight Justices and having split evenly on the last major challenge to Executive Power (involving the Obama Administrations so-called DAPA program) I doubt the Court wants to take this on right now; 3) at the TRO stage, the record is very sparse and the Court often looks through the record for some non-Constitutional basis to avoid sweeping rulings; 4) the Court has complete discretion as to whether to grant review in this situation and does not have to provide any reasons for denying review.

As to the merits, I doubt that the EO as currently drafted can pass constitutional muster. For example, as noted by the 9th Circuit panel, a returning lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to full due process under Supreme Court rulings. Whatever that might mean in the section 212(f) context, it has to involve, at a minimum, a hearing before a quasi- judicial official with some type of Article III judicial review. To the extent that Nolan suggests that the President himself can make such determinations or delegate them to non-quasi-judicial officials I disagree.

Also, someone coming to the U.S. with a positive overseas refugee determination would clearly be entitled to a fundamentally fair forum in which to make claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Indeed, anyone arriving in the United States has such a right.

I recognize the Sierra Leonian example cited by Nolan in his 02/08/17 article, and apparently that case was affirmed by the BIA and the 2d Circuit in unpublished decisions. However, it seems to me that under the CAT, a full due process hearing is required before returning individuals to a country where they might be tortured, even where that country has given “diplomatic assurances” that the individual will not be tortured. See Khouzam v. Attorney General, 549 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2008). I also doubt that withholding of removal, which can be granted to someone arriving at a land border after an order of removal has been entered, really is an “entry” under the INA.

These are just the most glaring examples of the lack of thought, judgement, and legal analysis that went into this ill-advised Executive Order. Haste makes waste. Bad cases make bad law, etc.

I’m inclined to believe, however, that it is likely that a carefully drafted and properly vetted Executive Order which applies only to individuals overseas who have never been admitted to the U.S., and which provides at least some type of “facially legitimate” factual basis to support it (and I don’t mean the idea that prior Congressional and Executive actions on the entirely different issue of whether an individual who was not from one of these countries, but who had visited one of these countries, could come in under a waiver of any visa vetting at all — “visa waiver”) would likely be upheld by the Court.

But, that’s probably not going to happen under this Administration. Indeed, President Trump is making the strongest possible case that our doctrine of separation of powers and the continued existence of our very constitutional republic will require, if anything, an even higher degree of judicial scrutiny of almost all Executive actions. A President who surrounds himself with such obviously unqualified individuals as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Mike Flynn shows just why the President’s judgement is not to be trusted — on this or almost anything else.

There is a reason why this issue hasn’t come up before in our history. It’s called wise and prudent Executive judgement. And, it’s sorely lacking in this Administration.

PWS

02/13/17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

02/13/17

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

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

From the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

02/10/17

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

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

PWS

02/10/17

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

02/09/17

Sometimes, Saying Nothing & Just Going About Your Business Is The Best Strategy

http://time.com/4664957/trump-tweets-judiciary-judges-gorsuch/

Mark Sherman reports in Time:

“(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s unusually personal criticism of federal judges has drawn rebukes from many quarters, including from Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, but not from the judges themselves.
And that’s not likely to change, even if the tweeter in chief keeps up his attacks on judges. Bolstered by lifetime tenure, independent judges should not respond to criticism, no matter how harsh or that its source is the president, said a former judge, a law school dean and a constitutional law professor.
Judges “should basically give the tweets the attention they deserve, which means they should be ignored. This is basically a childish tantrum from someone who didn’t get his way. And the judiciary should go about its business and decide cases, including cases involving him,” said Vanderbilt University law professor Suzanna Sherry.
Trump’s style may be different and his language more coarse, but the comments themselves are not the “threat to judicial independence that some commentators have made them out to be,” said University of Pennsylvania law school dean Theodore Ruger.
Former U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said judges would find themselves in unfamiliar territory “if they start critiquing the Twitter feed of the president.”
Chief Justice John Roberts has apparently embraced that advice. Roberts declined through a court spokeswoman to comment for this article.

Roberts himself was Trump’s first target during the presidential campaign. Last winter, Trump called the chief justice “an absolute disaster” and “disgraceful” mainly for the two opinions Roberts wrote that preserved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Next in Trump’s sights was U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over fraud lawsuits against Trump University. In June, Trump called Curiel “a hater of Donald Trump” who couldn’t be fair to him because Curiel is “of Mexican heritage” and Trump had proposed building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.
Last week, Trump pegged U.S. District Judge James Robart as a “so-called judge” after Robart imposed a temporary halt on Trump’s executive order barring people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from coming to the United States. On Sunday, Trump renewed his Twitter attacks against Robart: “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
On Wednesday, he said the “courts seem to be so political,” in reference to the three federal appeals court judges who are considering the administration’s plea to enforce the order.
Later Wednesday, Gorsuch said he found the president’s attacks on the judiciary “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” The comments were made in a private meeting with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, although senators often provide an account of what was discussed in such meetings. Gorsuch’s confirmation team confirmed the essence of the remarks.
Trump is not the first president to object to court decisions or to opine about how a court should rule, said Paul Collins, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Obama used his 2010 State of the Union message to assail the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance ruling, with several justices in the audience. Obama also delivered a lengthy pitch for his health care law while the court was weighing the case in 2015.
With the exception of John F. Kennedy, every president since Dwight Eisenhower has been critical of some Supreme Court decisions, said Collins, drawing on research he did with co-author Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha of the University of North Texas.
But past presidents did not make their displeasure known by “attacking judges … or by questioning the decision such that there’s a possibility of undermining faith in the judicial system,” Collins said. “I get this uncomfortable sense that the president may be trying to lower confidence in judges in anticipation of defying a ruling.”
Ruger said Roberts, as the head of the judicial branch of government, or another justice might feel compelled to speak up about the importance of an independent judiciary if the attacks continue.But Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah who was a judge from 2002 to 2007, said Trump has the right to voice his disagreement. “We live in an age now where, for better or for worse, the language we use is getting rougher in a variety of contexts,” he said.”

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

It also helps to have a job with life tenure.

PWS

02/09/17

WashPost: The Fix: Trump Threatens Third Branch!

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

Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

02/08/17

Summaries Of 9th Cir. Travel Ban OA & Judicial Bios From WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-immigration-action-in-courts-hands-1486491207

DEVLIN BARRETT, BRENT KENDALL and ARUNA VISWANATHA report in today’s WSJ:

“An appeals court pressed a Justice Department lawyer Tuesday on whether President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration is discriminatory, while also pushing an attorney for the two states fighting the order to explain how it could be unconstitutional to bar entry of people from terror-prone countries, the Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the administration, urged the appeals court to remove a lower-court injunction on the order, arguing that the court shouldn’t second-guess the president’s judgment when it came to a question of national security.

The executive order, Mr. Flentje told a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, struck a balance between security concerns and the practice of allowing people to enter the country.

“The president struck that balance, and the district court’s order has upset that balance,” he said. “This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the president and the court’s order immediately altered that.’’

The oral arguments on whether to reinstate some, all, or none of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration represented a crucial test in the fast-moving legal battle over White House efforts to restrict entry into the U.S. The Jan. 27 order suspended U.S. entry for visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries for at least 90 days, froze the entire U.S. refugee program for four months and indefinitely banned refugees from Syria. The administration argues the action was needed to keep terrorists from domestic soil.

The president weighed in on Twitter on Wednesday morning: “If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!”

The legal clash, which is also playing out in other courts around the country, represents a remarkable test of the powers of a new president determined to act quickly and aggressively to follow up on his campaign promises. Mr. Trump, who promised repeatedly on the campaign trail to tighten what he called lax immigration policies, issued his executive order a week after taking office, generating widespread protests as well as plaudits and setting off an immediate debate over the extent of executive branch authority.”

. . . .

The court isn’t making a final determination on the legality of Mr. Trump’s order for now. Instead, it must decide what immigration rules will be in effect during the coming months while court proceedings on the substance of the president’s restrictions continue.”

Read the WSJ’s bios of the three U.S. Court of Appeals Judges on the panel: Judge William C. Canby Jr., Judge Richard Clifton, Judge Michelle Friedland:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-federal-judges-will-decide-on-donald-trump-travel-ban-1486488393

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

This one still seems “too close to call.” There are substantial arguments on both sides. Courts generally do not like to interfere with the authority of the President in the fields of immigration, national security and foreign policy. On the other hand, appellate courts are usually very reluctant to interfere with trial court proceedings at the very preliminary TRO stage. While this might eventually end up in the Supreme Court, as most commentators assume, I’m skeptical it will go there any time soon, given the Supreme’s current short-handed configuration.

PWS

02/08/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: