"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.
Professor Ibrim X. Kendi Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities Boston University PHOTO: Linkedin
Professor Kendi writes on LinkedIn:
To preserve slavery, enslavers claimed slavery was “positively good” and that abolitionists were making up the terror and exploitation of slavery. To preserve Jim Crow, segregationists claimed public accommodations and institutions were “separate but equal” and that civil rights activists were making up all the racial inequity and injustice. To preserve racism today, the ideological descendants of enslavers and segregationists are claiming that the U.S. is a “colorblind” society and antiracist intellectuals and activists are making up all the racial inequity and injustice. As they strive to preserve racism, we must strive to recognize and combat these repackaged ideas by deepening our understanding of history. Making this #BlackHistoryMonth all the more critical. 👊🏿
Dr. Kendi is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University, and the director of the BU Center for Antiracist Research. He is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a CBS News racial justice contributor.
****************
Lots of power and truth in five sentences. Let’s celebrate Black History Month by embracing and understanding what right wing politicos don’t want you to know about our nation, how we got to where we are today, and how we can finally achieve the long-unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all!”
Some Article III Judges recognize that “deport at any cost” at EOIR is a “bad look” for American justice! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
In this case, involving a woman and her two children, EOIR engaged in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by unilaterally moving the respondents hearing to an earlier date — arguably a due process denial in and of itself given the coordination and preparation necessary to competently present merits cases in Immigration Court. Then, EOIR failed to give legally sufficient notice of the arbitrarily accelerated hearing — a common occurrence in this dysfunctional and poorly administered system, as most practitioners would tell you.
Indeed, the defective notice was returned to EOIR, so the IJ knew that the respondent was never properly notified of the hearing. Nevertheless, ICE improperly moved for an in absentia order and the the IJ erroneously granted it.
Upon learning of the illegal “in absentia” order entered against her, the respondent promptly moved to reopen, providing unrebutted evidence of non-receipt of notice. The IJ erroneously denied the motion.
On appeal, the BIA compounded this farce by wrongfully affirming the IJ’s clearly wrong decision. Instead of confessing error, OIL advanced frivolous arguments for dismissal, falsely claiming dilatory action by the respondent, even though there is no “time bar” on a motion to reopen for defective notice.
The Ninth Circuit summarily reversed in an (unfortunately) unpublished decision. Circuit Judges Friedland and Paez, obviously and justifiably upset by this totally preventable travesty, were motivated to enter a separate concurring opinion commenting on the unprofessional “clown show” 🤡 operating at EOIR:
FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge PAEZ joins, concurring:
When the date of a removal hearing changes, the Government is required to provide a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) containing the new date and time. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). If a person fails to appear for her hearing, she shall be removed in absentia only “if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice [of the hearing] was so provided.” Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
Here, when Ontiveros Lozano’s removal hearing date was moved up, the Government mailed her an NOH, but it was returned as undeliverable over a month before her scheduled hearing. Ontiveros Lozano therefore indisputably did not receive the required notice, and the Government knew this. Yet the Government requested and received an in absentia removal order against Ontiveros Lozano when she did not appear for her scheduled hearing. In doing so, the Government violated the explicit statutory requirement in § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
The Government now argues that Ontiveros Lozano’s removal proceedings should not be reopened because she was not diligent in discovering the Government’s conduct and because she has forfeited her challenge to the entry of the in absentia removal order.
The Government’s duty should be to seek justice, not to deport people at any cost. In my view, it lost sight of that duty here.
The full ugliness and dysfunction of EOIR and the DOJ are on display here:
Aimless Docket Reshuffling in action;
Defective notice;
Violation of statutory requirements;
Defective administration of justice;
Unethical actions by ICE counsel in requesting an in absentia order knowing full well that the respondent had never received notice;
Stunningly poor trial judging (2X);
Horrible appellate judging;
Frivolous defense of an unjust decision by OIL.
This system is broken! It’s promoting injustice and clogging the Article III Courts with poor quality work product by USG “judges” and attorneys who aren’t up to or well-qualified for their jobs. The focus on “removal at any cost” rather than due process and justice is unconstitutional and unethical. It comes from poor leadership from the Attorney General on down! The only question is why isn’t anybody in charge motivated to fix it!
A quarter century ago, the “EOIR vision” was a noble one: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” It was even posted on the website! Not only has that noble vision disappeared, both literally and figuratively, but over the last two decades Administrations of both parties have degraded justice and functionality at EOIR — some intentionally, some negligently, sometimes a toxic combination of the two.
In the absence of Article I legislation, what EOIR and the DOJ immigration bureaucracy need is a thorough housecleaning, new dynamic, due-process-focused expert leadership, and better judges at both levels. Letting EOIR continue its “death spiral,” as the Biden Administration has done, is totally unacceptable!🤯
Many thanks and appreciation to one of our newest Round Table 🛡️ members, Judge Sandy Hom, recently retired from the New York Immigration Court, for spotting this unpublished opinion and forwarding it! It’s the kind of common purpose, collegiality, and teamwork that is largely absent from today’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Former president Donald Trump denigrated his domestic opponents and critics during a Veterans Day speech Saturday, calling those on the other side of the aisle “vermin” and suggesting that they pose a greater threat to the United States than countries such as Russia, China or North Korea. That language is drawing rebuke from historians, who compared it to that of authoritarian leaders.
“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”
Trump went on further to state: “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”
The former president’s speech in Claremont, N.H., echoed his message of vengeance and grievance, as he called himself a “very proud election denier” and decried his legal entanglements, once again attacking the judge in a New York civil trial and re-upping his attacks on special counsel Jack Smith. In the speech, Trump once again portrayed himself as a victim of a political system that is out to get him and his supporters.
Yet Trump’s use of the word “vermin” both in his speech and in a Truth Social post on Saturday drew particular backlash.
“The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear,” said Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do.”
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said in an email to The Washington Post that “calling people ‘vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”
“Trump is also using projection: note that he mentions all kinds of authoritarians ‘communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left’ to set himself up as the deliverer of freedom,” Ben-Ghiat said. “Mussolini promised freedom to his people too and then declared dictatorship.”
“We are still creating [monsters]. We see it in … Russian attitudes toward Ukrainians, in Hindu Islamophobia, and in American racism against Black people,” psychologist David Livingstone, a professor at the University of New England in Maine, told EL PAÍS.
It wasn’t just Germany.
In 1909, a U.S. satirical magazine, Puck, published a cartoon that showed Uncle Sam as a pied piper leading a group of immigrants from Europe. The immigrants were rats. Sending them off: smiling, well-dressed White men.
I appreciate that Marianne LeVine of WashPost was one of the few “mainstream journalists” with the guts to make the painfully obvious connection and comparison between Trump’s insane threats and Hitler, Mussolini, and other horrible dictators!
Marianne LeVine Political Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
Even so, it was only “page 2” news in today’s Post, apparently being of far less concern to her editors than the plans of Middle Eastern countries to “upend global sports!” Harkens back to 1936, when participating in Hitler’s “Aryan Showcase Olympics” was more important to the U.S. and other Western Democracies than protesting and condemning Hitler’s ongoing persecution of Jews!
There was a time in the not too distant past when use of racist, neo-Nazi language like Trump’s would have earned an immediate forceful condemnation from politicians across the political spectrum, from the media, and would have ended a candidacy. Now, it’s “just another day at the office.” Hate, lies, racism, and threats by a powerful national politician, a former President no less, cause barely a ripple in our national political dialogue. Not even front page news! Not covered at all by most “legitimate” news outlets! Yet the threat to our nation is real! Very real!
And, in case anyone still doubts the existential threat to American democracy and civilization itself posed by Trump and his anti-American followers, his “plans” include politicization of government, economic chaos, increasing global warming, and destabilization of the U.S. and world economies. See, e.g.,http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=019284ab-7357-40c1-91c7-112654eb687a.
Robert Reich Former US Secretary of Labor Professor of Public Policy CAL Berkeley Creative Commons LicenseNaturalization Ceremony USG Official Photo Public Domain
On Saturday, Donald Trump conducted the second formal rally of his campaign — in Pickens, South Carolina, where an estimated 50,000 turned up under the scorching sun to hear him.
There, he advanced his version of patriotism based on White Christian Nationalism.
He began by celebrating the town’s namesake, Francis Pickens, who was governor of South Carolina when it was the first to secede from the Union on the eve of the Civil War. Trump assured the crowd he wouldn’t let “them” change the town’s name.
He commended the Supreme Court for rejecting affirmative action “so someone who has not worked as hard will not take your place.”
He saluted the court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade so “radical left Democrats will not kill babies.”
He promised to stop “men competing in women’s sports” and prevent classroom teachers from teaching the “wrong” lessons about sexuality or history.
He condemned foreign governments that “send” over the border “people in jails and insane asylums” and promised to deny entry to “all communists and Marxists.”
And he declared America’s most dangerous opponents not to be Russia, China, or North Korea but “enemies within” America.
Rubbish.
The true meaning of patriotism is the opposite of Trump’s exclusionary White Christian Nationalism.
America’s moral mission has been toward greater inclusion — providing equal rights to women, Black people, immigrants, Native Americans, Latinx, LGBTQ+, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic.
True patriots don’t fuel racist, religious, or ethnic divisions. Patriots aren’t homophobic or sexist.
Nor are patriots blind to social injustices — whether ongoing or embedded in American history. They don’t ban books or prevent teaching about the sins of the nation’s past.
True patriots are not uncritically devoted to America. They are devoted instead to the ideals of America — the rule of law, equal justice, voting rights and civil rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom from fear, and democracy.
True patriots don’t have to express patriotism in symbolic displays of loyalty like standing for the national anthem and waving the American flag.
They express patriotism in taking a fair share of the burdens of keeping the nation going — sacrificing for the common good.
This means paying taxes in full rather than lobbying for lower taxes or seeking tax loopholes or squirreling away money abroad.
It means refraining from making large political contributions that corrupt American democracy.
It means blowing the whistle on abuses of power even at the risk of losing one’s job.
And volunteering time and energy to improving one’s community and country.
Nor is patriotism found in baseless claims that millions of people vote fraudulently. Or in pushing for laws that make it harder for people to vote based on the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
Patriotism lies instead in strengthening democracy — defending the right to vote and ensuring more Americans are heard.
Patriots understand that when they serve the public, their responsibility is to maintain and build public trust in the institutions of democracy.
They don’t put loyalty to their political party above their love of America. They don’t support an attempted coup.
They don’t try to hold onto power after voters have chosen not to reelect them. They don’t make money off their offices.
When serving on the Supreme Court, they recuse themselves from cases where they may appear to have a conflict of interest. They don’t disregard precedent to impose their own ideology.
America’s problem is not as described by Trump and his White Christian Nationalism — that the nation is losing its whiteness or dominant religion, that too many foreigners are crossing its borders, that men are competing in women’s sports or teachers are not celebrating the nation’s history.
America’s problem is that too many Americans — including its lawmakers — are failing to understand what patriotism requires.
The NAACP’s Board of Directors has issued a travel warning about Florida that accuses the state, and pointedly Gov. Ron DeSantis, of being “openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals.”
“Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color,” the notice issued Saturday states.
The civil rights organization specifically accuses DeSantis, a possible 2024 Republican presidential candidate, of aggressively attempting to erase Black history and “restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools.”
. . . .
*****************
Read Nina’s complete report at the link.
“Gathering the dead after the Colfax massacre, published in Harper’s Weekly, May 10, 1873” — White Nationalist snowflakes like DeSantis feel diminished and threatened by the truth about American history and the role of race.
The “anti-woke agenda” touted by DeSantis is a very thinly disguised euphemism for “overtly racist!” That, decades after folks like Gov. George Wallace and Sen. Strom Thurmond unabashedly made hate, segregation, and racism the “centerpieces” of failed presidential bids, racists like DeSantis are openly campaigning on the same basic platform, and enacting it in their “mini-reichs,” should be deeply disturbing to younger generations of voters who will have to live with the stupidity, ignorance, cynicism, and hate promoted by these immoral GOP pols. It’s a race backwards and to the bottom that can only end in a complete catastrophe for our nation and the world!
Also remember: It all started with the dehumanization and false demonization of migrants. Many, including too many Dems, have been unwilling to stand up against it! That’s how the GOP’s “destroy America” agenda gains traction!
On April 4, 1968, I was a senior in high school when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee. That weekend I had been attending a planning meeting in Richmond, Virginia, for mobilizing white teens from suburban churches to serve in inner-city projects in the District of Columbia and Baltimore.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Irv Williams is a native of Baltimore, with family roots in the Northern Neck of Virginia. He moved to Maine in 1973 and is a resident of Peaks Island.
Driving home on Sunday afternoon I arrived at the Baltimore city line, about five miles from my house, to find National Guard troops and tanks blocking off access to the city. I was allowed to pass only on the condition that I drive directly home.
Today I know the real reason I was allowed to pass by those armed soldiers was that my face was white, not Black. Dr. King was only 39 years old when he was murdered.
William Page was only 25 years of age when he was lynched in August 1917 in Lilian, Virginia. My mother would have been a toddler sleeping in her crib at home, just a mile away from the schoolyard in which he was hanged. Newspaper reports state that a mob of about 500 men assembled to commit the murder.
William Page would be the last Black man to be lynched in my mother’s home county of Northumberland, but the lynchings would continue on for another seven years, claiming the lives of nine additional Black men across Virginia.
I am now just a bit older than my mother was when she died. At 72, I look back over a lifetime of witnessing racial injustice through the segregation of schools and other public and private facilities. The false doctrine of “separate but equal” was then in full force throughout Virginia, where both of my parents were born and raised.
I carry childhood memories of seeing “White” and “Colored” water fountains in the county courthouse. Of visiting the family doctor whose small brick office behind his house had separate waiting rooms. Hearing my grandmother talk about “the colored” schools that a neighboring county closed for five full years rather than integrate, meanwhile taking public funds to open white academies. Knowing that nearby was a “colored beach” that was a small sliver of sand allotted to Black children. And knowing that there would never be any Black worshippers or preachers at the church revival meetings where my grandmother played piano.
Looking back at all of those memories, I know full well that the privilege to pass by those National Guard tanks in 1968 had come at the expense of others, sometimes in deadly ways.
In his 1964 book “Why We Can’t Wait,” Dr. King wrote: “Armies of officials are clothed in uniform, invested with authority, armed with the instruments of violence and death and conditioned to believe that they can intimidate, maim or kill Negroes with the same recklessness that once motivated the slaveowner.”
Now, nearly 60 years later, we see that Dr. King is still being proven right with the brutal beating death of Tyre Nichols in Memphis. It wasn’t a rope like they used on William Page, or a bullet like the one that felled Dr. King, but the stun gun, pepper spray, fists and boots of police officers who have been charged with murder in an incident that equals the terror of the August night when 500 men watched William Page die.
Must we wait for another hundred years to pass for this senseless killing to stop? The simple answer is, no, we can’t wait.
**********************
The work of achieving due process and equal justice for all persons in America, as required by our Constitution, remains urgent and unfinished!
Indeed, under the “New Jim Crow” GOP and it’s noxious, intellectually dishonest, morally challenged “leaders,” our nation has actually regressed from some of the key achievements that Dr. King championed.
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism. If YOU don’t share the GOP White Nationalist insurrectionist “vision” of an American wracked with hate, exclusion, dehumanization, inequality, bias, bogus myths, and return to a “whitewashed history that never was,” YOU must stand against the “21st Century Jim Crow Mob” that seeks to seize control over YOUR country.
It’s particularly critical for the next generations to decide whether they want to live in a better, fairer, more tolerant world, or be forever captive in a White Supremacist, misogynist, fearful past, beholden to a “whitewashed” version of history that never was!
“The IJ granted Omorodion’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT and, after an initial remand by the BIA, reaffirmed that decision. In July 2018 the BIA vacated the IJ’s grant of CAT relief and ordered Omorodion removed, concluding that Omorodion did not show that she would suffer torture or that public officials would acquiesce in her torture. … First, Omorodion argues that the BIA mischaracterized and ignored key evidence. We agree. … The BIA also erred by failing to apply the clear error standard in its review of the IJ’s “predictive finding that [Omorodion] would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the Nigerian government.” … The BIA erred as a matter of law when it overlooked such evidence and rejected the IJ’s predictive finding. To summarize, we grant the petition and remand because the BIA overlooked material components of the record and misconstrued others. See Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2009). Should the BIA vacate the IJ’s grant of CAT relief on remand, it should explain where it identifies clear error in the IJ’s factfinding based on the totality of the record. If any vacatur is not due to clear error, the BIA must otherwise “provide sufficient explanation to permit proper appellate review” of its decision. Hui Lin Huang, 3 677 F.3d at 137. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“We remand for the agency to conduct the required factfinding and analysis regarding the reasonableness of Perez Nagahama’s delay in filing her asylum claim following her changed circumstances. An asylum applicant must file an asylum “application . . . within 1 year after the date of . . . arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is an exception for “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Where there is such a change, the applicant must file an application “within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). The IJ concluded and the BIA assumed that Perez Nagahama’s circumstances changed materially when she began living as openly gay in April 2015. What is a reasonable period for filing after a changed circumstance is a fact-specific inquiry: IJs should make specific “findings of fact with respect to the particular circumstances involved in the delay of the respondents’ applications” to determine the reasonableness of the delay. Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 193, 195–96 (B.I.A. 2010). … Perez Nagahama has raised a reviewable question of law that the agency failed to apply the proper standard because it did not consider her specific circumstances before concluding that her delay was unreasonable. … The agency did not conduct the required factfinding and analysis. … Here, the IJ did not make findings of facts regarding the reasonableness of the delay in light of the attendant circumstances. The BIA should have remanded to the IJ to consider whether the delay was reasonable. … Instead, the BIA made its own factual determinations that Perez Nagahama beginning to live as openly gay did not make her delay reasonable and that the other facts she pointed to were not related to this underlying changed circumstance. Compounding this issue, the BIA gave no reasoning for its conclusion that the relevant circumstance made her delay unreasonable.”
[Hats off to Genet Getachew!]
**********************
Clearly, the BIA’s performance in this and other recent CA remands is far below even the “good enough for government work” mantra that prevails at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Why does Garland think “NOT good enough for government work” is “goodenough for due process for ‘persons’ who happen to be foreign nationals” with the their lives at stake in his “smashed to smithereens” piece of our “justice” system?
The only way Garland gets to where his EOIR is today is by “Dred Scottification:” That is, intentionally treating “persons” (“humans”) in his Immigration Courts as “non –persons” under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. If that sounds like a “Stephen Miller wet dream”🤮 (grotesque as that image undoubtedly is), it’s because that’s exactly what it is! How does a Dem Administration get away with this affront to due process, equal protection, and racial justice in America?
Kind of makes me wonder what they taught at Harvard Law (Garland’s alma mater) and other so-called “elite” law schools. I daresay that virtually all law students I have encountered in teaching immigration and refugee law for a number of years at Georgetown Law would have done better than the BIA had these cases been on my final exams.
The BIA’s inability to fairly and competently apply basic legal standards, honestly and professionally evaluate evidence of record, give asylum applicants the “benefit of the doubt” to which they are entitled under international standards, provide positive practical expert guidance on granting relief, eliminate “asylum free zones,” promote uniform outcomes, and develop and enforce “best judicial practices” is a major factor in the incredible two million case backlog that Garland has built in Immigration Court! His failure to take corrective action by replacing the BIA with competent, expert, unbiased appellate judges is a major breach of both ethical standards and his oath of office! How does he get away with it?
Thousands of asylum applicants at our border are being illegally returned to danger! Individuals with valid claims to be in the United States are routinely being denied relief for specious reasons and clear misapplications of basic legal standards in his “courts” —powerful indicators of systemic bias that should have been forcefully addressed by Garland on “day one” of his tenure at EOIR, as experts recommended.
Garland’s victims’ lives are irrevocably ruined or even ended! Misery is inflicted on their family, loved ones, and American communities! Dedicated lawyers working overtime to save lives are mistreated by Garland’s courts and traumatized by sharing the horrible consequences to their clients of systemic inferior judging! America is denied legal immigrants we need!
Our Federal justice system is overwhelmed with wasteful and never-ending litigation of immigration cases that should have been timely granted in the first instance and bad policies that never should have seen the light of day. In this respect, note that the IJ actually got it right in Omorodion! Then, in attempting to accommodate DHS and achieve an illegal removal, the BIA completely botched it on appeal! Even where justice prevails at the “retail” level, the BIA screws it up!
Yet Garland just shows up for work and draws his paycheck as if this were the way “justice” is supposed to work in America and fixing it is “below his pay level!” Gimmie a break!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, many congrats and much appreciation to NDPA stalwarts Tom Moseley and Genet Getachew!
I am particularly honored to recognize the litigation greatness of my long-time friend, former INS colleague, and NDPA litigation icon 👍🏼🗽 Tom Moseley. He honed his complex litigation skills as an INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY during my tenure as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.”
Since leaving INS decades ago, Tom has been a tower of “practical impact litigation” and “Life-Saving 101” in New Jersey and beyond. Thanks for all you do, my friend!
In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.
A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4
By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7
A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9
Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.
The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:
I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12
Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.
Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:
By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15
In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16
Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18
When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.
Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.
In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.
According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22
Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Notes:
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
Id.
The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
22.Private email to the author.
*****************************
Republished by permission.
As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”
This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.
Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing!
Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum.
“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform!
Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.
Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”
As one more reminder of what we’ve lost, the text of the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling is unlikely to console us. Even so, I recommend downloading the pdf. In the wake of its overturning, this beautifully written document – which reads like a long form essay – is not only interesting in itself but now seems like another sign of how much has changed over the last half century, in this case for the worse.
Drafted by Justice Harry Blackmun, the ruling includes a clear and persuasive summary of the history of abortion law. “At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy that she does in most States today.” It tracks the centuries-old debate over when life begins, and dismisses the argument that a fetus is a person guaranteed the protections afforded US citizens. Throughout, it strikes us as the careful explication and clarification of a law, of legal precedent, unlike Justice Alito’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, which seems more like an expression of religious conviction masquerading as an unbiased interpretation of the constitution.
The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka Purnell
What’s most striking about Roe v Wade – and its difference from the ruling that overturned it – is its eloquence. Blackmun’s lucid, frequently graceful language reflects a commitment to decency and compassion. The judges are clear about the dangers of carrying an unwanted child or a high-risk pregnancy to term. They strive to see the issue from the perspective of those confronting a serious life crisis, and to imagine the devastating outcomes that pregnant women and their families may face.
Advertisement
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
“Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”
The passage I admire most is the one in which Blackmun, at once profound and lyrical, describes the atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion, the way our opinions are formed, and the pressures that the law must acknowledge and keep in balance.
“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”
And there it is: a superbly rendered catalogue of the factors that come to mind when we consider the factors that will now determine whom Dobbs will hurt most: poverty, race, and life on the raw edges of human existence – an edge, one might say, on which every decision about abortion is made.
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Francine’s article at the link.
Let’s face it. The concern for human life of out of touch righty ideologues like Alito ends at birth. After that, the “others” are expendable — particularly if they are women or folks of color!
All their claimed concern about “personhood” ends at delivery — when it can no longer be used to threaten vulnerable pregnant women or medical professionals. After that, the GOP program for kids (whether wanted or not) consists of things like:
Valuing their lives below the “right” of every Tom, Dick, and Harriett in America to own and use military-style assault weapons (something that certainly wasn’t the “original intent” of the drafters of the 2d Amendment);
Cutting education budgets, “dumbing down” public school curriculums, and harassing teachers, school administrators, and school board members;
Imposing work requirements on public assistance without regard to the needs and availability of suitable child care;
Deporting their parents to far away countries without concern for the welfare of children (US citizen and others);
Declaring “war” on vulnerable kids who aren’t heterosexuals;
Opposing provisions that would expand the availability of health insurance to kids;
Spreading misinformation about life-saving vaccines for children;
Falsely denying climate change that threatens the world we will leave to our kids and future generations;
Spreading fear and terror in ethnic communities containing “mixed families” to discourage them from taking advantage of available community services;
Threatening the educational rights of non-citizen children currently guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe (but perhaps not for long, if the Clarence Thomases of the world have their way);
Treating kids in Immigration Court as less than “persons” entitled to full due process (for example, forcing toddlers to “represent themselves” in life or death asylum cases);
Separating families;
Detaining families and children in grossly substandard conditions;
Making it more difficult for people of color to vote and thus exercise their legal and political rights;
Being more concerned about BLM protests than in the loss of young black lives that generated them.
I could go on an on.
One essential starting place and training ground for a “new generation” of Federal Judges who will be committed to humane values, empathy, accurate historical understanding, due process, and equal justice for all is the “retail level” of our justice system — the U.S. Immigration Courts, currently controlled solely by AG Merrick Garland. That’s why Garland’s disturbing failure to instill progressive values and install scholarly progressive judges — the best, brightest, and most courageous — in his now-dysfunctional EOIR system should be of grave concern to advocates of individual choices and anyone who cares about equal justice for all and the future of our nation!
The GOP-dominated Federal Judiciary has become a tool of authoritarians and religious zealots who seek to wipe out established individual rights, reduce humanity, and insert themselves and their out of touch views into every aspect of human existence — ultimately threatening the very future of humanity!
The Dems, by contrast, are the party of individual rights and human freedom. Too bad they haven’t done a better job of selling, and sometimes of following and boldly acting upon, their own stated values!
Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy
Craig Mousin has been the University Ombudsperson at DePaul since 2001. He received a BS from Johns Hopkins University, a JD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and an M Div from Chicago Theological Seminary. He joined the College of Law faculty in 1990, and served as the Executive Director of the Center for Church/State Studies until 2001, Acting Director until 2003, and co-director from 2004–2007. Mousin co-founded and continues to participate in the Center’s Interfaith Family Mediation Program. He has taught in DePaul’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies, the Religious Studies Department, the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy, and the Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies program. He has also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Illinois College of Law and Chicago Theological Seminary .
Prior to DePaul, he began practicing labor law at Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in 1978. In 1984, Mousin founded and directed the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center, a provider of legal assistance to refugees which has since become the National Immigrant Justice Center. He also directed legal services for Travelers & Immigrants Aid between 1986 and 1990. The United Church of Christ ordained him in 1989. At that time, Wellington Avenue U.C.C. called him as an Associate Pastor. He was a founding co-pastor of the DePaul Ecumenica l Gathering (1996-2001). Mousin serves as a Life Trustee of the Chicago Theological Seminary. In addition, he is a member of the Leadership Council of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a member of the Leadership Council of the Marjorie Kovler Center for Survivors of Torture, a former President and member of the Board of the Eco-Justice Collaborative, and a former President and Board member of the Immigration Project of downstate Illinois. Mousin is a current member of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section Ombuds Committee.
Craig writes:
Comment: Paul,
You might be interested in a short interview I did with Chicago FOX news on World Refugee Day. I tied the celebration in with the honoring of Juneteenth. See:
Also, I do not know if you subscribe to my podcast, Lawful Assembly, but my last post tied together censorship of books in public schools with anti-immigrant sentiments. You can listen at:
Today’s WashPost Outlook Section contained a highly relevant article by author Dave Eggers about how far-right zealots — many with no real stake in our public schools — have taken over at local levels and apply extreme censorship — even to books and concepts that have been successfully and routinely taught for years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dave-eggers-book-bans-south-dakota/
In this case, it’s driving experienced teachers who believe in truth, freedom, and individual rights to flee in droves. So, what we’re really seeing is a shocking “dumbing down” of American education, libraries, and public discourse driven by far right fear-mongers seeking to impose their lack of values and intolerance on others.
We have seen this week how far-right activist extremists, from the Supremes to local politicians and school boards, have elevated guns that kill while gutting the individual rights to free speech, equal protection,and fundamental fairness guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments.
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly a horrible jurist. But, in this instance he might be the only honest GOP appointee on the Supremes.
When Thomas says that immigrants’ human rights, gay rights, right to conception, marriage rights and most other meaningful individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution are on the chopping block, progressives had better believe him. Remember how “leaving things to the states” worked out for African Americans and other minorities attempting to exercise their fundamental rights, even after the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And, remember all those paeons to precedent and “not to worry” about Roe statements under oath from GOP Supremes’ candidates before they actually took their seats on the Court and started scheming to undo abortion rights for political, not legal, reasons!
“Social Justice Warriors” like Craig have been fighting the good fight for decades. But, at this point, it’s going to depend on the NDPA and other young progressive groups to take on the extremist right at the ballot box and to take back their individual rights — really all of our individual rights.
Otherwise, they will find themselves as a disempowered counterculture, hiding out and trying to keep ahead of Ray Bradbury’s firemen in Fahrenheit 451!
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 21–147. Argued March 2, 2022—Decided June 8, 2022
Respondent Robert Boule owns a bed-and-breakfast—the Smuggler’s Inn—in Blaine, Washington. The inn abuts the international border between Canada and the United States. Boule at times helped federal agents identify and apprehend persons engaged in unlawful cross-bor- der activity on or near his property. But Boule also would provide transportation and lodging to illegal border crossers. Often, Boule would agree to help illegal border crossers enter or exit the United States, only to later call federal agents to report the unlawful activity.
In 2014, Boule informed petitioner Erik Egbert, a U. S. Border Pa- trol agent, that a Turkish national, arriving in Seattle by way of New York, had scheduled transportation to Smuggler’s Inn. When Agent Egbert observed one of Boule’s vehicles returning to the inn, he sus- pected that the Turkish national was a passenger and followed the ve- hicle to the inn. On Boule’s account, Boule asked Egbert to leave, but Egbert refused, became violent, and threw Boule first against the ve- hicle and then to the ground. Egbert then checked the immigration paperwork for Boule’s guest and left after finding everything in order. The Turkish guest unlawfully entered Canada later that evening.
Boule filed a grievance with Agent Egbert’s supervisors and an ad- ministrative claim with Border Patrol pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Egbert allegedly retaliated against Boule by re- porting Boule’s “SMUGLER” license plate to the Washington Depart- ment of Licensing for referencing illegal activity, and by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and prompting an audit of Boule’s tax re- turns. Boule’s FTCA claim was ultimately denied, and Border Patrol took no action against Egbert for his use of force or alleged acts of re- taliation. Boule then sued Egbert in Federal District Court, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive use of force and a First Amendment violation for unlawful retaliation. Invoking Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, Boule asked the Dis- trict Court to recognize a damages action for each alleged constitu- tional violation. The District Court declined to extend Bivens as re- quested, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: Bivens does not extend to create causes of action for Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and First Amendment retaliation claim. Pp. 5–17.
(a) In Bivens, the Court held that it had authority to create a dam- ages action against federal agents for violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Over the next decade, the Court also fashioned new causes of action under the Fifth Amendment, see Davis v. Pass- man, 442 U. S. 228, and the Eighth Amendment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14. Since then, however, the Court has come “to appreciate more fully the tension between” judicially created causes of action and “the Constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial power,” Her- nández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___, ___, and has declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations, see, e.g., Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296; Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367. Rather than dispense with Bivens, the Court now emphasizes that rec- ognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___, ___.
The analysis of a proposed Bivens claim proceeds in two steps: A court asks first whether the case presents “a new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningfully different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action,” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___, and, second, even if so, do “special factors” indicate that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to “weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” Id., at ___. This two-step inquiry often resolves to a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy. Further, under the Court’s precedents, a court may not fash- ion a Bivens remedy if Congress already has provided, or has author- ized the Executive to provide, “an alternative remedial structure.” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___. Pp. 5–8.
(b) The Court of Appeals conceded that Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim presented a new Bivens context, but its conclusion that there was no reason to hesitate before recognizing a cause of action against Agent Egbert was incorrect for two independent reasons. Pp. 9–13.
(1) First, the “risk of undermining border security provides reason to hesitate before extending Bivens into this field.” Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___. In Hernández, the Court declined to create a damages remedy for an excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent be- cause “regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications.” Id., at ___. That reasoning applies with full force here. The Court of Appeals disagreed because it viewed Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim as akin to a “conventional” exces- sive-force claim, as in Bivens, and less like the cross-border shooting in Hernández. But that does not bear on the relevant point: Permitting suit against a Border Patrol agent presents national security concerns that foreclose Bivens relief. Further, the Court of Appeals’ analysis betrays the pitfalls of applying the special-factors analysis at too gran- ular a level. A court should not inquire whether Bivens relief is appro- priate in light of the balance of circumstances in the “particular case.” United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669, 683. Rather, it should ask “[m]ore broadly” whether there is any reason to think that “judicial intrusion” into a given field might be “harmful” or “inappropriate,” id., at 681. The proper inquiry here is whether a court is competent to authorize a damages action not just against Agent Egbert, but against Border Patrol agents generally. The answer is no. Pp. 9–12.
(2) Second, Congress has provided alternative remedies for ag- grieved parties in Boule’s position that independently foreclose a Bivens action here. By regulation, Border Patrol must investigate “[a]lleged violations” and accept grievances from “[a]ny persons.” 8 CFR §§287.10(a)–(b). Boule claims that this regulatory grievance pro- cedure was inadequate, but this Court has never held that a Bivens alternative must afford rights such as judicial review of an adverse determination. Bivens “is concerned solely with deterring the uncon- stitutional acts of individual officers.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 71. And, regardless, the question whether a given remedy is adequate is a legislative determination. As in Her- nández, this Court has no warrant to doubt that the consideration of Boule’s grievance secured adequate deterrence and afforded Boule an alternative remedy. See 589 U. S., at ___. Pp. 12–13.
(c) There is no Bivens cause of action for Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim. That claim presents a new Bivens context, and there are many reasons to think that Congress is better suited to authorize a damages remedy. Extending Bivens to alleged First Amendment vi- olations would pose an acute “risk that fear of personal monetary lia- bility and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the dis- charge of their duties.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 638. In light of these costs, “Congress is in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served” by imposing a damages ac- tion. Bush, 462 U. S., at 389. The Court of Appeals’ reasons for ex- tending Bivens in this context—that retaliation claims are “well-estab- lished” and that Boule alleges that Agent Egbert “was not carrying out official duties” when the retaliation occurred—lack merit. Also lacking merit is Boule’s claim that this Court identified a Bivens cause of ac- tion under allegedly similar circumstances in Passman. Even assum- ing factual parallels, Passman carries little weight because it predates the Court’s current approach to implied causes of action. A plaintiff cannot justify a Bivens extension based on “parallel circumstances” with Bivens, Passman, or Carlson—the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action—unless the plaintiff also satisfies the prevailing “analytic framework” prescribed by the last four decades of intervening case law. Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___–___. Pp. 13–16.
998 F. 3d 370, reversed.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion con- curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S CONCURRENCE DISSENT (joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan):
This Court’s precedents recognize that suits for damages play a critical role in deterring unconstitutional conduct by federal law enforcement officers and in ensuring that those whose constitutional rights have been violated receive meaningful redress. The Court’s decision today ignores our repeated recognition of the importance of Bivens actions, particularly in the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure context, and closes the door to Bivens suits by many who will suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s treat- ment of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim.
****************************
Thus, the Border Patrol is free to egregiously violate Constitutional rights of citizens and other “persons” in the U.S. without meaningful accountability. But, I suppose it’s what one might expect from a right-majority Court that generally views rights of corporations and guns as fundamental while treating most individual rights of persons in the U.S. as expendable.
As for Justice Thomas’sludicrous suggestion that filing a complaint with the CBP hierarchy is a “remedy” for wrongdoing? That’s in the “sick joke” category as anyone who has actually tried to file such a complaint would know.See, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/aclu-asks-dhs-take-action-complaints-abuse-misconduct-u-s-n1259657. Clearly, Thomas and his colleagues live in a privileged “parallel universe” where they have never had to rely on the DHS’s internal bureaucracy for redress of Constitutional violations!
As cogently pointed out by Justice Sotomayor, the majority’s intentional misuse and mischaracterization of the “national security fiction” to immunize government conduct from meaningful review in a case that actually has little or nothing to do with national security or foreign relations should also be of grave concern to all of us. Right-wing judges’ propensity to use “fictions” and “pretexts” to mask their real intent and to arrive at preconceived results is a major exercise in intellectual dishonesty!
It also reinforces my observation that it is wrong to keep appointing Justices who lack personal experience with representing individuals within our broken, dysfunctional, and often lawless immigration bureaucracy, which currently includes the U.S. Immigration “Courts” at EOIR.In many professions and occupations, the “future movers and shakers” are required to “start at the retail level” — like the rest of us — so that they understand their “customers'” needs, wants, expectations, problems, and concerns. Why do we exempt our most powerful judges from this “basic training” in delivering justice to human beings at the “retail level” of our justice system?
While many folks are too blind to see it, the lack of informed judicial oversight of the Constitutional performance of DHS, DOJ, DHS, DOS, DOL and the rest of the often underperforming USG immigration bureaucracy undermines the Constitutional rights of everyone in America, including citizens!
Life-tenured Federal Judges might act as if they are “immunized” and “above the fray” (also, to a disturbing extent, above the law and our Constitution, particularly where migrants are concerned). Meanwhile, it’s “the people’s rights” that are on the chopping block with an unprincipled “out of touch” far-right judiciary too often wielding the ax!
Tal Kopan @ SF Chron reports on latest public miscue:
A California lawyer tweeted what she saw in immigration court. The DOJ demanded she delete it
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — On Feb. 1, attorney Monika Langarica was in a San Diego courtroom watching as the Biden administration resumed hearing cases on a controversial immigration policy that requires migrants to wait in Mexico while they plead their case to enter the U.S. That evening, she wrote a series of tweets describing what she saw.
The next day, she received an email from the Justice Department that shocked her: The administration asked her to delete the tweets. They claimed she violated a policy against making a record of immigration court proceedings and threatened potential criminal penalties if she committed “further violations.”
The Justice Department retracted its request and apologized to Langarica after The Chronicle inquired about the threat, saying further review confirmed she was not tweeting from the courtroom and thus did not violate any policies.
Still, the surprising episode raised several issues, including First Amendment concerns, issues of transparency in the often secretive immigration courts as well as criticisms of the policy at the heart of the dispute.
“It (was) shocking, because we are in our right to observe these proceedings, we are in our right to share with the public what is happening in these court rooms,” Langarica said in an interview before the apology had been issued. Langarica is an attorney with the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and formerly with the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union.
Why would an agency with failure, problems, and valid criticism “coming out it ears” 👂 be wasting official time monitoring the Twitter accounts of court observers?
Assuming that were some legitimate reason, why wouldn’t the first reaction to Ms. Langarcia’s tweets be “Hey, let’s sit down with you and your friends and figure out how to fix this?”
Instead of having more “flackies” in their bloated bureaucracy to suppress the public trappings of failure and to “massage the message,” why not put the resources into getting better bodies out there to FIX THE MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS crippling the agency and making it a parody of justice? It’s going to take more than a band of public apologists in the PIO to outsmart brilliant, informed investigative reporters like Tal!
It’s little wonder that EOIR doesn’t want light shed on what’s really happening in their “Star Chambers!”
“Scream as loud as you want. Nobody’s going to hear you!”
Reminds me of one of my favorite “EOIR War Stories.” My Arlington colleague Judge Wayne “Tell It Like It Is” Iskra once truthfully said in open court said what most experts and his colleagues privately had been saying for ages: “This system is broken!” Unknown to Judge Iskra, however, a reporter was sitting in the audience and the comment received publicity, the thing that EOIR fears most!
Coming from a former two-time Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Criminal Courts, hardly known as a “bleeding heart liberal,” one would anticipate that Iskra’s blunt assessment might have spurred some immediate corrective action and internal reforms. But, the only action it created at EOIR was basically to tell Iskra to “sit down and shut up.”
As always, EOIR was more concerned about “protecting itself” from a judge speaking truth than dealing with the consequences of that truth. As a result, the system is even more broken now than it was when Iskra had the audacity to “speak truth to power!”
The union is hopeful that President Biden will reverse the decision, but they have yet to see action. “I know the new administration is extremely busy; I think this is a very important and significant issue,” said Paul Shearon, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a union that represents many high-skilled federal employees.
As the administration begins to process asylum seekers in the “Remain in Mexico” program and otherwise roll back Trump’s asylum blockades, the court system will need to run efficiently and fairly. As it is, the immigration court backlog—largely created by Trump policies—is at 1.3 million cases.
Trump’s decertification of NAIJ “was to retaliate against NAIJ for our strong voice and our strong call to demand transparency and accountability,” said Amiena Khan, NAIJ president. The union’s previous president, A. Ashley Tabaddor, is now chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The union is hopeful that Biden will take action, though nothing has yet been forthcoming.
“We are very supportive of the current Biden administration and appreciate his strong support for unions and collective bargaining,” said Khan.
Biden’s position on unions in other contexts has been clear. Some labor historians have said he is the most pro-labor president in their lifetimes. In an executive order in January, Biden directed the Office of Personnel Management to make recommendations concerning raising the minimum wage for federal employees to $15 per hour. In February, Biden voiced support for Amazon workers’ right to organize, an unprecedented level of support from a sitting president.
Almost immediately, the immigration judges’ union asked if he would follow up by voluntarily recognizing their union. No action has been taken. A White House spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Merrick Garland has now been confirmed as attorney general, perhaps setting the stage for quicker movement. But the union says that, despite immigration judges being part of the Justice Department, an attorney general appointment isn’t needed to reverse the decision. The administration can voluntarily recognize the union.
. . . .
******************
Over the last four years, the NAIJ was was one of the few “inside sources” of truth about the Trump Administration’s misconduct and gross mismanagement — “malicious incompetence” —at the DOJ. Obviously, in the Trump Administration speaking truth to power was a punishable offense. NAIJ was no exception.
This union representing Immigration Judges was illegally “decertified” in an absurd decision by the FLRA finding that IJs were now “management officials” on the basis of actions that had reduced them to little more than “deportation clerks” carrying out the regime’s White Nationalist, xenophobic agenda.
Not only did IJs continue to have no control whatsoever over their staff and working conditions, but they were unceremoniously stripped of their already-limited authority to professionally manage their dockets and to exercise independent discretion. They were subjected to due-process-killing “deportation quotas” and bogus “performance evaluations” by unqualified and largely out of touch “supervisors” — few, if any, of whom handled full dockets themselves — that would have been more suited to entry level deportation officers than supposedly independent and impartial “judges.” Meanwhile, the real primary cause of uncontrollable backlogs and endless delays at EOIR — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos at EOIR HQ and the DOJ, and horrible, anti-due process, out of touch with reality “precedents” by biased AGs and the BIA — continued unabated.
Always subject to control by their “handlers” at EOIR HQ and DOJ, IJs were further humiliated by being barred from teaching at professional seminars and writing for scholarly publications. Their dockets and roles were defined by highly unqualified politicos who had never presided at an immigration hearing in their careers! Talk about screwed up!
Who ever heard of a “judiciary” that operates like a totally dysfunctional bureaucratic agency — that has most recently been run by non-judicial personnel who lack expertise, experience, and a commitment to due process — but were focused on carrying out an overtly anti-immigrant, anti-human rights, anti-due-process White Nationalist political agenda!
To add to this outrageously politically-biased scenario, to reach its ludicrous result the FLRA had to steamroll both their prior precedent on the same issues and overrule the decision of their own Regional Director.
Presently, the NAIJ is the only organization providing due-process oriented training directly to Immigration Judges. The leadership of the NAIJ stand out as some of the most qualified, courageous, and talented judges on the immigration bench.
Judge Garland and the Biden Administration simply can’t afford to leave the NAIJ out in the cold if they intend to fix the now totally-screwed-up EOIR and bring constitutionally-required equal justice under law to the broken and reeling DOJ. You simply can’t promote racial justice in America while running a “court” that has institutionalized racial biases and mocks, tramples, and ignores due process and equal justice on a daily basis!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ!
Trump RegimeTrump’s Legacy Kiddie GulagJeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under licenseJeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions “Police Brutality? What Police Brutality?”Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com, Republished under licenseStephen Miller & Count Olaf Evil Twins, Notorious Child Abusers“Gauleiter Muller & Eva Braun” Yuck it Up In The Comfort Of “Public Welfare Dole” While Looking Forward to Planning Together for More “Crimes Against Humanity,” Abusing Children, Dehumanizing Persons of Color, Spreading Lies & False Narratives, & Targeting World’s Most Vulnerable Refugees 🤮☠️⚰️🦹🏿♂️ — Sure Looks Like “Welfare Fraud” to Me!
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has called for the investigation and prosecution of current and former Trump administration officials afterthe Department of Justice Office of the Inspector Generalreleased “a disturbing report confirming that the Trump administration knew their zero tolerance policy would lead to family separations,” the Oregon Democrat said in a statement.
“We finally have more answers about how this diabolical plan came to be,” Merkley said. “It is crystal clear that Jeff Sessions, Stephen Miller, Chad Wolf, Kirstjen Nielsen and other senior Trump administration officials were not only fully aware that their policy would have traumatizing impacts on families, but also that their intention was to inflict that trauma as a means to deter people from coming to America in search of a better life.”
The senator added “it’s now confirmed that they committed perjury by lying to Congress about their intentions and actions in order to avoid accountability for their monstrous initiative.”
“The intentional infliction of harm on innocent children is unforgivable and has no place on our soil,” Merkley said Thursday. “The architects should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any crimes connected with both the atrocities and the cover-up.”
Merkleyreturned to the border 6 more timesand advocated for families to be reunited – and for people seeking refuge “from gang violence, murder, rape, and extortion in their home countries” be allowed to make their case – something the senator alleges the Trump adminitration has not allowed in keeping with the law.
“America is at its strongest when we embrace our historic role as a beacon of hope for persecuted people from around the world,” Merkley said. “I am determined to work with the Biden administration to ensure that we turn that vision into a reality, and to hold the perpetrators of the Trump administration’s cruelty fully accountable.”
********************
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Senator! Right on! Remarkable how all it takes is an armed insurrection against our Capitol and our democracy generated by the Traitor Prez and supported by far, far too many cowardly, anti-American members of his “Party of Treason” to get folks “thinking like Courtside.”
Even if the criminals described by the IG escape prosecution for their crimes, the new IG Report and the additional documents that certainly will come to light once the Trump kakistocracy is removed should provide enough evidence to keep these wretched fascist creatures and their families tied up in civil litigation for the rest of their miserable and worthless lives!
To date, only Senator James Langford (R-OK) has had the decency to apologize for his role in supporting Trump’s beyond bogus, treasonous, insurrectionist claims of “election fraud” or a stolen election. Where are the apologies from the rest of the cowardly GOP traitors and toadies who supported and/or enabled Trump and his band of racist thugs over the past four years? Why is scumbag Rep. Jim Jordan walking around with a bogus “Medal of Freedom” for spreading lies and encouraging sedition, rather than sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial?
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
“Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions. Child abuser and racist plotter remains at large, after having the shameless audacity to run for the U.S. Senate again, being defeated by Magamoron “Coach TubbyTraitorville” (a blithering idiot who obviously got hit by one too many flying tackling dummy).
“Gauleiter Stepan Muller.” Hiding out on the public dole in the seat of corruption and insurrection (formerly and soon again to be known as the “White House”) with his repulsive “Eva Braun substitute” and carrying out more “crimes against humanity” to the end.
Rod Rosenstein. Hiding out, hanging his head in (belated, fake)shame and making the big bucks at King & Spaulding. Will need them after he is dismissed from his law firm, disbarred, and has to pay legal fees and damages to the families he traumatized.
Gene (No Relation to Alex) Hamilton. Still grifting on public welfare at the DOJ until next Wednesday. First cowardly “Waffern SS Member” to publicly take the “Nuremberg defense:” “I was only following Der Fuhrer’s orders.”But, he won’t be the last.
Donald J. “Big Loser/Traitor” Trump. Hiding out in White House basement and planning flightfrom DC after initiating botched coup attempt against his own Government.
Victims of Failed Regime’s “Crimes Against Humanity.” Already sentenced to a lifetime of pain, suffering, and trauma by Large Banana Republic that shirked its legal and moral duties.
Accountability for this “gang of White Nationalist thugs” is important!
Also, Judge Garland needs to look into the conduct of the DOJ lawyers who defended the regime’s transparent lies and false claims that there was “no child separation policy.” These turkeys 🦃 took no responsibility for their clients’ ongoing crimes and cover ups. Indeed, outrageously, they got away with making it the burden of the plaintiffs’ lawyers to reunite families the Government intentionally and illegally separated without any plans for reunification.
The invidious racist, unconstitutional motives of criminals like Trump, Miller, Sessions, Hamilton, and Rosenstein was no secret. Except for the degree of Rosenstein’s involvement, it was widely reported at the time. Trump was a well-established liar whose public statements and rationales should have been assumed false until proven true. (Ask yourself what would happen to a corporate lawyer who took at face value and presented to a court as “facts” or a “defense” in a civil suit false statements by a corrupt CEO with a long-standing record of fraud, racism, and dishonesty.)
Also, what was the a racist hack like Sessions (the report also reveals that he was as totally incompetent as a lawyer as he was devoid of human decency) doing running border enforcement programs that had intentionally been removed from the AG’s portfolio by Congress when DHS was created? How does that fit with “Gonzo’s” transparently unethical and unconstitutional actions as a “quasi-judicial officer” in interfering with due process at the EOIR Clown Show🤡/Star Chamber🦹🏿♂️?
This IG report is just the “tip of the iceberg” of the institutionalized racism and systemic misconduct that polluted the immigration kakistocracy at DOJ and DHS during the Trump regime. The failings of the U.S. Justice system from top to bottom, starting with the Supremes’ consistent failure to critically examine the regime’s transparent pattern of unconstitutional, racist, biased behavior culminating in an insurrection can’t be “swept under the carpet.”
Nor can their enabling of the White Nationalist immigration agenda of “Dred Scottification” pushed by unethical SG Noel Francisco! In a well-functioning democracy, the Trumpist thugs’ child abuse should have been stopped in its tracks. Thanks to the failure of legal, ethical, and moral leadership by Roberts and his righty GOP buddies, it wasn’t!
The entire beyond disgraceful and patently illegal “zero tolerance program” instituted by Gonzo was a grotesque misuse of public funds and abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Real crimes (the Trump regime has been an absolute boon to serious criminals from the Oval Office on down) went un-prosecuted and un-investigated. The conduct of U.S. Attorneys, Federal Judges, and U.S. Magistrate Judges along the border who shirked their duties and participated in the legal farce taking place in our criminal justice system also needs to be examined.
Those of us who lived through Watergate can see that this time around, under extraordinarily poor leadership generated by an anti-American GOP, the response of all three branches of our Federal Government to the overt threats to our Constitution and democracy posed by a dishonest Executive fell disturbingly below the bipartisan levels that saved our nation from Nixon.
That’s why the critical democratic standard of a “peaceful and orderly transfer of power” has fallen by the wayside and the Biden-Harris Inauguration will take place in an armed camp. Ironically, the man administering the oath to President Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts and his GOP colleagues on the Supremes bear a major responsibility for democracy’s peril and the pain and suffering of those like separated families whom they failed to protect from Executive abuses!
As I’ve said before, although it won’t happen, the resignations of Roberts and his fellow GOP Justices should be on President Biden’s desk on the morning of January 21. That would be a real start on healing, restoring democracy, and reinstituting human decency and respect for human lives and the rule of law in America.
(Let’s not forget that ethics-challenged Justices Thomas and Coney Barrett showed up at what essentially was a “MAGA campaign rally” at the White House on the eve of the election that eventually resulted in impeachable acts of insurrection and sedition by a patently dishonest and dangerous Chief Executive whose unfitness to govern was more than clear by that time. Honestly, it’s going to take more than a black robe to cover the shame of these dudes who stand for protecting and enabling tyranny and against justice for the people. If nothing else, it’s high time for a Democrat-led Congress to impose at least some minimal ethical standards on the Supremes, since they appear to have none to mention. That’s, of course, after they come to grips with the treason of GOP guys like Cruz and Hawley who should be expelled and barred from public “service” (treason?) for life.)
🇺🇸⚖️🗽👎🏻Due Process Forever! Cowardly thugs, 🥷🏻magamorons, 🦹🏿♂️ and their enablers, never!
Perhaps you’ve reserved some optimism for the whole “Barrett’s a mom and a Catholic so there must be some compassion there” thing. Sorry, but no. In her confirmation hearings, she spoke about how the George Floyd video was “very, very personal” for her family, and that she and her children “wept together” over what must have been the zillionth police murder in her history as a lawyer and mother. But her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, seemed to think it was constitutional to put innocent people to death, despite his ultra-Catholicism. There’s no reason to believe that any sort of ideological consistency will prevail simply because of a judge’s familial status or bizarre metaphysical beliefs, and those factors made no apparent difference in Brad’s case.
Here’s where this gets complicated: In saying that being part of this horrendous decision should disqualify a judge from serving on the Supreme Court, by extension, I’m saying that damn near every federal judge is similarly unqualified. Almost none of them believe that cops should be held accountable for killing mentally ill people who call for help. This sort of thinking, in which cops are extended every benefit of every doubt, feasible or unfeasible, is the norm. Barrett didn’t even write the opinion in Brad’s case. It was written by a liberal judge who, like all her colleagues (of whatever political persuasion), was willing to write the police a blank check. That’s how our courts have operated for decades, and even in a post-BLM society, few of those in robes have the intestinal fortitude to do anything different.
So I am unmoved by Justice Barrett’s faith. I am unmoved by her status as a working mother of seven. I am particularly unmoved by her fake expression of sympathy for George Floyd, whose case she had nothing to do with, when she couldn’t spare any for the people who actually appear before her. I’m unmoved because I’ve seen so little compassion for grieving parents like Matt and Gina throughout my career, from any federal judge, let alone the Federalist Society drones who have lately taken over the judiciary. The basic inability to do what’s right for families like the Kings should be disqualifying. Not just for Amy Coney Barrett, but for the whole lot of ‘em.
A version of this originally appeared in LEO Weekly.
Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.
************************
Read Dan’s complete article chronicling the tone-deaf mishandling of the police shooting death of a young man (his clients’ son) suffering from mental health issues.
This echoes what I’ve been saying on Courtside about the need for a “new breed of better, more progressive Federal Judges” who recognize the compelling human side of the law and why the Constitutional requirements of due process, equal protection, and fundamental fairness are there in the first place. They exist to protect individuals from tyranny and government overreach, not to be ignored, watered down, or woodenly distinguished away to protect government abusers from accountability or to further ideological agendas (primarily, but not exclusively those developed by right wingers) out of touch with the most vulnerable levels of humanity they are supposed to be serving.
Life tenure means that Coney Barrett and the rest of her unqualified colleagues will be around for a long time. But, change needs to start somewhere, now!
In my experience, internal pushback, dissent, and constant confrontation of the complicit, complacent, judicial status quo with an aggressive implementation of due process, fundamental fairness, and a commitment to human rights and the best interpretations of the law can over time play a critical role in improving the law, changing results, and perhaps most important, saving lives!⚖️🗽👩⚖️🧑🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️🇺🇸 That, not the hollow ideological agendas of Coney Barrett and others like her, is what “good judging” is really all about!
Intentional lack of compassion, empathy, and humanity (“Dred Scottification” of the “other”) have been themes of Trump, Miller, Wolf, Sessions, Barr, Rosenstein, Nielsen, Pompeo and the other neo-fascist toadies and moral misfits who have gleefully served the regime over the past four years. But, lack of overall resolve and courage to stand up and uniformly and authoritatively “just say no” to these toxic, anti-American, anti-humanity policies and to hold the “perps” accountable for their systemic lawlessness has plagued the Federal Judiciary, with a feckless and often downright complicit Supremes’ majority “leading” the way.
The current sorry state of our democracy, where GOP demagogues, who falsely swore to uphold our Constitution, openly spread lies, knowingly false narratives, and total BS in an attempt to incite violence, undermine our duly elected incoming President, and destroy democratic institutions, including the courts, is in part a reflection of the sad failure of our life-tenured Federal Judiciary to perform its core Constitutional function. That is, to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual law human rights in the face failures by the other two branches of Government to uphold their Constitutional responsibilities.
Compare the (finally) unified position of the judiciary on the frivolous election challenges by Trump and his cronies with the failure to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, and migrants from the “git go.” Even now, the Courts have failed to sanction Trump and his lawyers for their unethical behavior in bringing frivolous civil suits, with no supporting evidence, for the specific purpose of undermining a free and fair election and using the legal system to attack the legitimacy of the duly elected President-elect and his incoming Administration. “Corruptly weaponizing the law for improper purposes” is clearly inappropriate and unethical. Yet, folks like Rudy and Sydney Powell retain their law licenses and are free to continue to abuse and undermine the system with frivolous litigation.
Dan points to the “ongoing battle between the law and humanity.” That’s the problem! The law should and must be about defending and advancing humanity in the face of tyranny and injustice. We need judges who stand for human justice. For, as MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!”
Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!
