"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.
As you’ve probably heard by now, within the next few months, the Supreme Court is expected to overturnRoe v. Wade, ending the national right to an abortion. If that happens, the medical procedure will be severely restricted or just outright banned in about half the country. A lot of people are extremely upset about this because, among other things, they think the government should not get to treat 50% of the population like second-class citizens, and that pregnant people should be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies, just like men can chose to, say, have a vasectomy without a bunch of elected officials weighing in.
Yet somehow Montana senator Steve Daines doesn’t seem to understand why anyone would be griping about the catastrophic, dystopian situation that is about to befall women in the U.S. In fact, Daines appears to think he’s figured out a huge “gotcha” when it comes to liberals who want to ensure women have control of their own bodies: that “the left” cares more about the eggs of certain reptiles and birds than it does about human women’s eggs. Seriously.
Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Daines opined: “If you were to take or destroy the eggs of a sea turtle—now I said the eggs, not the hatchlings that’s also a penalty but the eggs—the criminal penalties are severe: up to a $100,000 fine and a year in prison. Now why? Why do we have laws in place that protect the eggs of a sea turtle or the eggs of eagles? Because, when you destroy an egg, you’re killing a preborn baby sea turtle or preborn baby eagle. Yet when it comes to a preborn human baby, rather than a sea turtle, that baby will be stripped of all protections in all 50 states, under the Democrats’ bill that we’ll be voting on tomorrow. Is that what the America the left wants?” (Daines was referring to the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation that would codify the constitutional right to an abortion into federal law, which the Senate failed to pass on Wednesday.)
Curiously, at no point in this speech lamenting that human women have too many rights compared to reptiles and birds, did Daines—who actually loveskillinglivingthings—acknowledge that humans do not lay eggs, that human embryos stay inside the mother until they are born, and that people are not endangered species. Must’ve been a mere oversight.
Senator Ron Johnson tells pregnant people to suck it up and drive out of state for an abortion if they want one
In the likely event that Roe v. Wade is gutted, countless lives will be destroyed, whether it‘s that of the rape victim who will have no choice but to give birth to her attacker’s kid, the woman living in poverty who can’t afford to raise a child, the literal child who has been impregnated by an abusive family member, or the person who simply had a different set of plans for their life that did not involve becoming a parent. Not to mention, the pregnant person who decides they have no choice but to undergo an illegal, risky abortion rather than be forced to give birth. But according to Republican senator Ron Johnson? None of this is a big deal and people are being hysterical over nothing.
Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, the Wisconsin lawmaker, who is up for reelection this year, said he doesn’t expect abortion to come up on the campaign trail because it’s basically a nonissue. “It might be a little messy for some people, but abortion is not going away,” Johnson said, an absolutely bizarre choice of words—not to mention, sentiment—given the history of women bleeding out and dying after unsafe abortions. He blithely added that though he doesn’t expect a 19th-century Wisconsin law banning abortions except to save the mother will go into effect if Roe is reversed, pregnant people can always go to neighboring Illinois if they want to obtain the medical procedure.
As so many people have noted, the reversal of Roe—and ensuing bans in numerous states—would disproportionately impact poor women and women of color. Those are people that, in fact, can’t necessarily just drive to Illinois (or the neighboring state that applies to them) because they can‘t get the time off of work, or don’t have a car, or have other children at home they can’t be away from for the night—or any of the many other reasons that Johnson apparently can’t think of. As for the idea that the 1849 Wisconsin law banning abortions won’t stand, Johnson is reportedly likely wrong about that too. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwrote last week, “Republican lawmakers for decades have made sure to preserve the 1849 ban in hopes that Roe would someday be overturned,” and the Republicans running for governor in the state “have [all] strongly opposed abortion and would be unlikely to sign legislation loosening the ban.”
Johnson, of course, has a long history of extremely shitty takes. As one of the most vocal proponents of Trump’s “big lie,” he repeatedly downplayed January 6, variously claiming that the attempted coup wasn’t “an armed insurrection,” even though that’s exactly what it was; that the rioters were not actually Trump supporters but “provocateurs” impersonating Trump supporters; and that he was never once worried for his life because the mob that stormed the Capitol were there to overturn an election, not protest for equal rights for Black people. He’s also a major purveyor of COVID misinformation, dispenses anti-vaccine rhetoric, and was temporarily kicked off of YouTube for promoting bogus cures. In 2010, he opposed a Wisconsin bill that would have eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse victims to bring lawsuits. And four years later, he reportedly did not tell the “police, Senate or Wisconsin officials that a former aide was allegedly sexually assaulted by a state lawmaker.”
So yeah, it’s not surprising that he has no earthly clue why any of this is a big deal, but that doesn’t make it any less crappy. “I just don’t think this is going to be the big political issue everybody thinks it is, because it’s not going to be that big a change,” he told the Journal, like only the absolutely most ignorant elected official can.
Nothing to see here, just Trump’s election coconspirator telling Pennsylvania to trash absentee ballots so it’d look like Trump won
Apparently John Eastman saw no potential issues here, hence putting the plot in actual writing. Per Politico:
Attorney John Eastman urged Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to retabulate the state’s popular vote—and throw out tens of thousands of absentee ballots—in order to show Donald Trump with a lead, according to newly unearthed emails sent in December 2020, as Trump pressured GOP lawmakers to subvert his defeat. This recalculation, he posited in an exchange with one GOP state lawmaker, “would help provide some cover” for Republicans to replace Joe Biden’s electors from the state with a slate of pro-Trump electors, part of a last-ditch bid to overturn the election results.
Per the exchange, Eastman suggested that GOP legislators could simply cite their concerns with Pennsylvania’s absentee ballot procedures and then use historical data to “discount each candidates’ totals by a prorated amount based on the absentee percentage those candidates otherwise received.”
“Having done that math, you’d be left with a significant Trump lead that would bolster the argument for the Legislature adopting a slate of Trump electors—perfectly within your authority to do anyway, but now bolstered by the untainted popular vote,” Eastman wrote in a Dec. 4, 2020 email to Pennsylvania Rep. Russ Diamond. “That would help provide some cover.”
The suggestion to simply throw out ballots like that was a very cool, very legal thing to do came out of a batch of emails obtained via public records requests by the Colorado Ethics Institute, which reportedly sent them to the January 6 committee. Neither the panel nor Eastman’s attorney responded to Politico’s requests for comment. Back in March, a federal judge said that Trump and Eastman “most likely” committed felonies when they tried to overturn the results of the 2020. “The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Judge David Carter wrote. Even more so now!
Guy whose entire shtick is to ban things from the classroom now requiring lessons about the harms of communism in the classroom
We’re going to guess that no, Ron DeSantis does not see the irony here. Per The Guardian:
Discussions of gender identity and sexual preference are banned in many Florida classrooms because of governor Ron DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law, alongside dozens of math textbooks blocked for “prohibited topics.” Now the Republican who has loudly condemned what he sees as the “indoctrination” of young people has made another subject compulsory: students must receive at least 45 minutes’ instruction every November about the “victims of communism.”
In a ceremony Monday at Miami’s iconic Freedom Tower, where tens of thousands of Cuban immigrants fleeing Fidel Castro’s revolution were admitted into the US between 1962 and 1974, DeSantis signed into law House Bill 395, designating 7 November as Victims of Communism Day…. The instruction will begin in the 2023-2024 school year, DeSantis said, and will require teaching about Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro, as well as “poverty, starvation, migration, systemic lethal violence, and suppression of speech” endured under their leaderships in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba respectively.
Mispronouncing the name of Che Guevara as “Che Kay-Farra,” DeSantis used the ceremony to yell at students who wear T-shirts with the revolutionary leader’s image on it. “You can see at a college campus students flying the hammer and sickle from the old Soviet Union flag, you will see students that will have T-shirts with Che Guevara, you will see students that will idolize people like Mao Zedong,” he said, according to The Guardian. “That to me, this speaks of a tremendous ignorance about what those individuals represented and the evils that communism inflicted on people throughout the world…. While it’s fashionable in some circles to whitewash the history of communism, Florida will stand for truth and remain as a beachhead for freedom.”
Earlier this year, Florida banned public schools and private businesses from inflicting “discomfort” on white people during lessons or training about discrimination, a ridiculous law that grew out of the conservative hysteria over critical race theory. Florida, of course, now also prohibits teachers from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation in grades k–3 (and, critics say, beyond).
Strangely, DeSantis has not said anything about introducing a bill requiring schools to teach students about the history of petty tyrants.
Rep. Elise Stefanik tries her hand at comedy
***********************
Read the full “Levin Report” here:
If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickhereto subscribe.
If you would like to share tonight’s newsletter, links to these stories can be found here and here. Thanks for supporting the LR!
“Dehumanization” by the GOP started with the “war on immigrants” during the Trump Administration, has been enabled and furthered by GOP-appointed righty judges (see, e.g., “Dred Scottification”), and now threatens the legal and human rights of all groups that the GOP doesn’t like. That’s a big list, folks, and many of YOU and those you care about are likely on it! ☠️
No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.
That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.
But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.
To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.
But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.
So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”
At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.
That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.
Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.
And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.
Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.
**************************
Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.
He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.
Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.
Critics were stunned Saturday after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Americans for not accepting controversial rulings — after his own wife battled against the results of a legitimate presidential election.
Thomas chided a distraught public in comments Friday at a judicial conference in Atlanta following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade and a half-century of the right to an abortion.
He complained that Americans are “addicted” to results they want — while “not living with” rulings they oppose. He warned that the court will not be “bullied” in the face of protest. Declining respect for the law and institutions, Thomas warned, “bodes ill for a free society.”
Thomas detractors were agog. Not only has his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, refused to “live with” the presidential election, he was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote that former President Donald Trump should not have to release his White House documents to the House committee investigating last year’s insurrection.
Thomas has also repeatedly attempted to rip up legal precedence set by the court.
“The irony is so thick you wonder if it’s maybe a Clarence Thomas impersonator,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said on MSNBC Saturday.
“Among other things, this is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents” of law, Litman added. “He’s now saying people don’t respect the law enough. That’s even leaving aside all the controversies he has engendered, as has his wife. It’s just … remarkable.”
. . . .
***************************
Read the full article at the link.
There is no end to the hypocrisy and subversiveness of the Thomas Clan and the far-right.
If you’re a person who believes it’s literally no one’s business who gets an abortion other than that of the pregnant individual undergoing the procedure, you’ve likely been incandescent with rage since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided to allow Texas to proceed with an insane law that prohibits terminating pregnancies after six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest. That anger likely stems from not just the law itself but having to listen to the chorus of dumbass voices who’ve come out backing Texas for effectively banning people from obtaining an abortion, from Tucker Carlson, who opined that the law shows “democracy does still exist,” to California gubernatorial candidate Caitlyn Jenner, who ironically commented that she supports Texas’s right to choose its own laws.
Of course, another one of those voices is the Lone Star state governor Greg Abbott, who signed the bill into law in May, saying at the time, “Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” and that the Texas Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that…ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.” (That both sides of the aisle supported the bill would be news to Texas Democrats, as just a single one of them voted for it.)
Asked on Tuesday why his state felt the need to “force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term,” Abbott responded like only a person who really, really hates women can, claiming, “It doesn’t require that at all.” He added: “Because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion, so for one it doesn’t [require] that. That said, however, let’s make something very clear. Rape is a crime and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start with the fact that Abbott is claiming that because the law allows for abortion up to six weeks, it’s not forcing anyone to do anything. As doctors, people who’ve been pregnant before, and people who’ve bothered to read a book on the subject before crafting legislation on it have noted, by the time a person misses her first period, she’s already roughly four weeks pregnant. That means that under Texas law, someone would have no more than two weeks, not six, to determine she’s pregnant and decide whether or not to get an abortion. Even in the case of people who are actively trying to get pregnant, that window can narrow even further for numerous reasons including if they have irregular cycles. Usually, then, one would make an appointment with a doctor to confirm the pregnancy, and as Abbott may or may not know, healthcare in America is not the greatest, so she may not be able to be seen for several weeks. And that hugely generous two weeks is not only a joke for many people actively trying to have a child, but for the majority of people who are not. “It is extremely possible and very common for people to get to the six-week mark and not know they are pregnant,” Jennifer Villavicencio, M.D., lead for equity transformation at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The New York Times. In other words, Abbott should fuck all the way off with his “obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.”
Then there’s the hilarious remark that he’s going to eliminate rape in Texas, so not allowing individuals to terminate pregnancies that result from heinous crimes is a moot point. Really, Abbott is going to make Texas rape-free? If he had that power, why didn’t he do it prior to enacting this law? The victims of the 14,824 reported rapes in his state in 2019, when he was four years into his first term, would probably love to know! (For those of you keeping up at home, that figure made Texas the No. 1 state for rape that year.)
Of course, Abbott is far from the first politician to say something ridiculously idiotic about abortion and rape. In fact, he joins a long line of assholes who’ve smugly offered their moronic two cents on the matter, an illustrious group that includes:
The Ohio state legislature, which introduced a bill in 2019 requiring doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into the uterus, or face charges of “abortion murder,” despite the fact that such a procedure is medically impossible;
Former Texas state representative Jodie Laubenberg, who claimed while in office that rape victims don’t need access to legal abortion, because they can get “cleaned out” with rape kits, which obviously is not at all how rape kits work;
Representative Michael Burgess, who somehow obtained a medical degree in 1977, and declared that male fetuses masturbate in utero—naturally, there is no evidence of this—, so abortions shouldn’t be allowed;
Former North Carolina state representative Henry Aldridge, who once said, “The facts show that people who are raped—who are truly raped—the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.” (Medical authorities do not agree with this);
Former congressman Todd Akin, who boldly declared on the campaign trail: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Welcome to the club, Greg! Can’t wait to hear you parse the nuances of putting $10,000 bounties on the heads of individuals trying to help people escape your barbaric law.
In other Abbott news…
When he’s not signing and defending disgraceful abortion bills, he’s disenfranchising millions of his constituents. Per Bloomberg:
Greg Abbott on Tuesday signed one of the nation’s most aggressive laws curbing access to the ballot, joining a wave of such restrictions enacted after former President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The legislature passed the measure last month after an exodus from the state by Democratic lawmakers during the first of two special sessions. After the walkout sputtered, Republican lawmakers passed the bill without delay.
Republicans have spent months raising doubts about the 2020 election, which experts say was one of the nation’s most secure. Now, supporters of new state laws say too many voters have lost faith in voting systems, and must be reassured.
“We must have trust and confidence in our elections,” Abbott said at a signing ceremony in Tyler, Texas. “The bill that I’m about to sign helps to achieve that goal. It ensures that every eligible voter will have the opportunity to vote.” Of course, that’s an interesting way to describe a law that makes it harder to vote, by, among other things, ending drive-thru voting, limiting mail-in voting, and endowing partisan poll watchers with more power. In a tweet, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote “This law is unconstitutional and anti-democratic. Texas—we’ll see you in court. Again.” Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic U.S. representative from El Paso, wrote in a statement: “Governor Abbott is restricting the freedom to vote for millions of Texans. Instead of working on issues that actually matter, like protecting school kids from Covid or fixing our failing electrical grid, Abbott is focused on rigging our elections and implementing extreme, right-wing policies.”
. . . .
*********************
You can check out the rest of the always lively and entertaining “Levin Report” at the above link. Like their lost idol, Abbott & DeSantis are plumbing the absolute bottom of American politics and actually killing and irreparably harming their “constituents” as they do it. Undoubtedly, that will make them “heroes” in today’s existentially dangerous “anti-heroic, anti-democracy” GOP!
These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)
First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent
By Geoffrey A. Hoffman
This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).
In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.
Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs. While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.
I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.
Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.
Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.
I address all three of these points below.
First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”
I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.
Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.
Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.
But this does not make sense.
Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?
In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases. Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.
Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.” The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.
Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion. The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.
But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows: “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .” But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.
And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.
This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.
For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue? Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved? To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.
All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts; and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard. Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”
Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides. It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.
(Institution for identification only)
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director
Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
August 31 at 6:37 PM ET
The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.
The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”
How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.
One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.
These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.
Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)
The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)
In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.
But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.
But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:
Davide Leonhardt Journalist NY Times PHOTO: Wikipedia
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why the shadow docket has grown
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
Six vs. three
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.
******************************
Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!
Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!
So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!
Charlotte Klein Staff Writer Vanity Fair PHOTO: Twitter
The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!
Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:
Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities;
Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else;
Idle threats of reprisals;
A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.
But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate?
There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!
A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!
Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!
Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!
