"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.
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal
Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:
. . . .
Even with an emoluments lawsuit filed against Trump on his first day in office, four years later nothing came of it. After he left office, the lawsuits were declared moot by the U.S. Supreme Court and dismissed.
The struggle to legally hold Trump to account over the alleged emoluments violations were emblematic of the rest of the lawsuits he faced during his presidency, whether they targeted him individually or his administration.
When lower courts ruled against Trump officials—as they did in suits over border wall construction—his administration would go to the U.S. Supreme Court to get an emergency order that allowed them to continue the challenged action. More often than not, Trump got a ruling in his favor.
“Trump could count on them for anything,” Norm Ornstein, a conservative resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, said of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“And certainly that’s the case with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett,” he added, referring to the three justices Trump appointed to the court.
And the novel legal questions surrounding lawsuits against a sitting president were enough to significantly delay several other challenges against him. House cases dragged out as courts determined whether lawmakers had the ability to sue to enforce subpoenas against the administration, a legal issue that forced similar suits to halt for months.
Despite two impeachments, hundreds of lawsuits against his administration and other litigation targeting him and his businesses, Trump left office relatively legally unscathed. Armed with a litigious past and a grip on his political party, he successfully managed to use the country’s institutions to minimize the blowback and get his way.
. . . .
************************
Those with NLJ access (everyone used to get 3 free articles/mo; now it’s down to one) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link. She’s a great writer. Too bad so much of her work is “hidden behind the wall.”
Lack of accountability for scofflaw behavior, abuse of power, and corruption are hallmarks of third-world dictatorships and authoritarian regimes throughout history.
The Supremes’ enabling started with the Travel Ban cases and continued to the Capitol insurrection, which “the complicit ones” were able to watch unfold from their marble palace across the street.
So, the Supremes, the institution whose most important job is to protect American democracy, democratic institutions, due process, and individual rights when the other two branches fail, wasn’t up to the job! Despite the Supremes’ best efforts to undermine democratic governance, and their active furthering of the GOP’s race-driven voter suppression agenda, 81 million voters bailed us out this time around. But, it’s highly unlikely that American democracy could survive another “Trump-type” authoritarian regime. Don’t expect any help from the Supremes as currently comprised.
“POPPYCOCK!” — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Characterization Of Trump Regime’s Defense Of Asylum Seeker Abuse By DHS & Barr’s Unethical & Frivolous Arguments!
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal & Legal Clairvoyant
Due Process “Legal Eagle” Jacqueline Thompsen reports for the National Law Journal’:
. . . .
The federal immigration law requires that officers who conduct the interviews—in which migrants must show they face at least a 10% chance of persecution due to certain factors in order to be eligible for asylum—receive significant training on handling the applications
In responding to the administration’s claims that the border patrol agents received similar training as asylum officers, Leon wrote, “Poppycock! The training requirements cited in the government’s declaration do not come close to being ‘comparable’ to the training requirements of full asylum officers.”
“To make matters worse, the January MOA precludes any individual CBP agent from conducting credible fear interviews for longer than 180 days, meaning that CBP agents cannot gain the experience necessary to appropriately apply the complex asylum laws and regulations,” the judge added. “These procedures plainly violate Congress’s requirements.”
The Trump administration has administered a widespread crackdown on asylum proceedings, adopting a slew of policies that make it more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution in other countries to obtain protections in the United States.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by attorneys with Tahirih Justice Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center, on behalf of four mothers and their seven children from Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico seeking asylum in the U.S. All of the migrants failed to pass the credible fear assessment conducted by CBP agents, which were upheld by immigration judges.
Leon also found in Monday’s ruling that it “would certainly seem unlikely” that CBP agent interviews of migrants could be considered to be “nonadversarial proceedings with a neutral decision-maker,” as required under federal regulations and guidelines. He noted that border patrol agents are considered law enforcement, and said federal authorities’ statements on measures they have taken to minimize the possibility of the interviews becoming adversarial “hardly seems sufficient.”
Leon wrote the training requirements for those conducting the credible fear assessments “are essential for a functioning asylum process, which is why Congress required them,” describing the legal framework surrounding U.S. immigration, asylum, and other similar processes as “complex, to say the least.”
“After all, an asylum officer who is not adequately trained in the applicable legal requirements is less likely to ask the right questions of an asylum seeker, or for that matter, to gather the facts necessary to make an accurate determination of whether an asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution,” he continued. “Indeed, the record here contains several examples of the effects of inadequate training: one CBP agent failed to follow up with questions about an asylum-seeking plaintiff’s sexual abuse, and another failed to inquire into another asylum-seeking plaintiffs husband’s murder investigation.”
Leon also found the immigrants in the case would face irreparable harm, if he did not issue a preliminary injunction to block their removal from the U.S.
***********
Why isn’t it an ethical and professional problem for “Billy the Bigot’s” DOJ to make nonsense arguments to a Federal Judge in support of unlawful actions? Private members of the bar arguing “poppycock” in a civil case could well find themselves referred for disciplinary action. Why are Cabinet Officials and their attorneys exempt from normal professional and ethical considerations?
If only more judges at all levels could write with such clarity and in plain English!
The rejection at the “credible fear” stage of the bona fide asylum claims described by Judge Leon is beyond appalling! These are essentially totally and intentionally unqualified and biased U.S. Government employees committing “crimes against humanity” and getting away with it! These aren’t “legal errors.” It’s systemic malfeasance, otherwise known as “malicious incompetence” with a heavy dose of racism and misogyny thrown in for a good measure!
If substantiated during the immigration hearing process that should have taken place, all these applicants should have been “slam dunk” grants of asylum, withholding of removal, and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture in a properly functioning justice system. Instead, but for the efforts of pro bono counsel, they would have been illegally returned to harm, torture, and/or death with no legitimate process at all!
No wonder “Billy the Bigot’s” Immigration Courts are out of control and the borders are a deadly mess when individuals who with proper screening and access to competent counsel should have been quickly legally admitted to the U.S. under protection laws are instead being “rejected” by biased and unqualified Border Patrol Agents impersonating Asylum Officers!
Here’s my favorite quote (among many) from Judge Leon’s decision:
Of course, the Government has a strong interest in the “prompt execution of removal orders.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. However, the Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations, League of Women Voters of U.S. v. I,{ewby,838 F.3d l,12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”), especially where those statutory violations may compromise the accuracy of such removal orders. R.I.L.-R. v Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015); Grace, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 14144 Indeed, the public has an interest “in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. As such, the balance of interests here weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.
The last point, “the public has an interest ‘in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm,’” Nken,556 U.S. at 436, has basically been ignored by the Supremes’ majority recently in sending refugees to their death or into harm’s way without any semblance of due process, based on various lies, distortions, and racist schemes by the Trump regime intentionally mischaracterizing “national security” and “national emergency.” As Judge Leon would say: “Poppycock!”
Perversely, the Trump regime and the Supremes’ have made execution of illegal removal orders, resulting from racist White Nationalist schemes, a “national priority.” Truly, this is a system broken from the top down in need of immediate repair and injections of intellectually honesty, moral courage, and ethics — something that seems “out of vogue” in all three branches of our failing democracy these days
I recently had a conversation with Jacqueline in which she basically predicted this decision based on her study of the arguments and trends among U.S. District Judges, regardless of philosophy or appointing party, in DC. Nice going Jacqueline! Congrats on your clairvoyance!
Those with NLJ access (anyone can get “three free” per month by registering) can read the complete article at the link.
Judge Leon’s linear, straightforward, and “no BS” treatment of the regime’s absurdist, unethical, and scofflaw legal “defense” of essentially “crimes against humanity” contrasts sharply with the disingenuous and essentially “brain dead” treatment of similar BS by the “JR Five” on the Supremes. There, the patently unconstitutional and illegal (not to mention immoral) agenda of neo-Nazi racist Stephen Miller and the unethical maneuvers of SG Noel Francisco are often wrongfully rewarded. By contrast, the the Supremes’ majority routinely trashes the legal and constitutional rights of vulnerable people of color, particularly asylum seekers, migrants, and voters beneath an avalanche of bogus “Dred Scottification” jurisprudence.
Additionally, Judge Leon is “onto something” that has been swept under the carpet by the Supremes and the Circuit Courts when he questions “whether CBP agents could ever lawfully be given authority to conduct asylum interviews and adjudicate asylum claims, see Compl. ‘]Tfl 108-09, it would certainly seem unlikely under these circumstances. After all, law enforcement officers typically “function as adversaries” whose role is “to investigate criminal activity, to locate and arrest those who violate our laws, and to facilitate the charging and bringing of such persons to trial.” New Jersey v T.L.O.,469 U.S. 325,349 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).”
Similarly, many of us have argued that Immigration “Judges” who work for uber-enforcer and Trump shill “Billy the Bigot” and have been “repurposed” and “weaponized” into DHS enforcement support staff can not possibly be the “fair and impartial” quasi-judicial adjudicators required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment!
Better Justices and better Federal Judges for a better America, particularly for people of color and other minorities. It’s actually quite simple and straightforward. It starts with throwing Trump and the GOP out of every political office this Fall.
Then, we need some real Justices and Federal Judges who will stand against systemic racism and enforce equal justice in America!Not, rocket science! Just knowledge of the Constitution, awareness of human rights and immigrants’ rights, a focus on racial justice, courage to speak truth to power, and a demonstrated commitment to human dignity and human decency.One could easily wonder why those haven’t been the minimal requirements for Federal judicial service in the past.
Past is past, particularly for life-tenured judges. But, America can’t afford any more disastrous judicial appointments, at any level, who lack the guts and human decency to stand up to scofflaw, neo-fascist racists like Trump, Miller, and their cronies.
The top to bottom overall failure of the American judiciary to put an end to unconstitutional and unfair racism and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” in our society is aiding and abetting the dark, lawless forces aligned with the regime destabilizing our country and ripping it apart! No more!
‘Failure Is Striking’: Trump-Tapped Judge Throws Out Administration’s Asylum Restriction
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly panned DOJ attorneys for leaning heavily on a single newspaper article in arguing the asylum restriction was exempt from rulemaking procedures.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., late Tuesday vacated a Trump administration rule that blocked migrants from petitioning for asylum in the U.S. if they were not first denied the protections by other countries they traveled through on their way to the southern border.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, issued the ruling nearly a year after he first rejected a temporary restraining order against the restriction. A similar challenge has played out in federal court in California, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction against the rule. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously said the administration can enforce the measure while that court fight played out.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Kelly found Trump officials violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not following the law’s “notice-and-comment” requirement before enacting the rule. He did not address other legal claims made against the policy.
Kelly rejected arguments from Trump Justice Department attorneys that officials could skip the notice-and-comment period for this rule through the APA’s “good cause” exception. Government lawyers said making the rule available for comment before it was implemented could cause a surge of asylum seekers at the border, but Kelly said there was “not sufficient evidence” to meet the exception.
Kelly slammed DOJ attorneys for leaning heavily on an October 2018 Washington Post article in making that argument, finding that the single newspaper article did not provide evidence for their record and there was little other evidence to support their claims.
“Even assuming that the rule was likely to have had a similar effect as the regulatory change described in the article, the article contains no evidence that that change caused a surge of asylum seekers at the border—let alone one on a scale and at a speed that would have jeopardized their lives or otherwise have defeated the purpose of the rule if notice-and-comment rulemaking had proceeded,” Kelly wrote. “In fact, the article lacks any data suggesting that the number of asylum seekers increased at all during this time—only that more asylum seekers brought children with them.”
The judge similarly rejected government charts showing data on border enforcement and encounters for not directly supporting DOJ’s claims.
“At bottom, as plaintiffs point out, defendants—‘despite studying migration patterns closely’—have ‘failed to document any immediate surge that has ever occurred during a temporary pause in an announced policy.’ That failure is striking,” Kelly wrote.
. . . .
*********************
Those with NLJaccess (or who haven’t exhausted their three free articles for the month) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link. The link to the full decision in CAIR Coalition v Trump is in the excerpt. I’ll have to admit that as an admirer of CAIR’s unrelenting efforts to protect our Constitution and our legal system from Trump’s racist-inspired lawlessness, the caption of this case is particularly fitting and satisfying.
Bravo for U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly for taking his job as an independent decision-maker and his oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. seriously!
This decision also casts doubt on the judicial integrity of those Supreme Court Justices who ignored the law to “greenlight” this same invalid regulation in the Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary. So far, the lower Federal Courts that have taken time to examine and reflect on the law have found Trump’s action’s unlawful. Makes one wonder why the Supremes’ majority was so overanxious to “get on with the killing” of refugees when the individual interests are life or death while the government interests are fabricated or highly exaggerated, factually inaccurate, pretexts.
When policy is made by Stephen Miller’s racist talking points rather than expert input and honest deliberation involving the common good, bad things are going to happen to those we are supposed to protect, not reject for fabricated reasons.
Still, Trump shouldn’t worry too much. He can still take his bad faith case to the D.C. Circuit where Judge Naomi “Show Me Where to Sign on My Master’s Bottom Line” Rao awaits. And, then there’s the J.R. Five who have shown the willingness and ability to accept almost any kind of unethical BS laid out by outgoing Trump SG Noel Francicso to “stick it to” vulnerable asylum seekers.
How will “The Five” function come October Term without Francisco to relay Trump’s wishes and to feed them thin cover stories that most lawyers would recognize as phony as a three-dollar bill?
A union of immigration judges is suing the Department of Justice over a policy allegedly restricting them from speaking publicly about immigration and other issues in violation of their constitutional rights, the latest escalation of tensions between the union and the federal department where they work.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Association of Immigration Judges by attorneys with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Virginia attorney Victor Glasberg, says DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review in 2017 began requiring the judges to seek preapproval to speak in their own capacity, and not on behalf of the office.
That was replaced earlier this year with a “more restrictive policy,” which mandates the judges cannot speak publicly about immigration or DOJ policies, and must obtain approval to speak, write or talk with members of the media about any other topic.
The lawsuit notes the policy was implemented during a series of changes in the immigration system and that the immigration judges are “uniquely positioned to inform the public on these issues, but the 2020 policy prevents them from doing so.”
. . .
**********************
Those with NLJ access (or who haven’t exhausted their three free articles for the month) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link.
The “DOJ/EOIR Clown Show” 🤡rolls, on leaving the public interest in the dust and the road littered with the broken bodies and crushed souls of bona fide asylum seekers and other mistreated migrants.
Really, isn’t this continuing circus and parody of justice supposed to be under “adult supervision?” Obviously, both Congress and the Article III Courts have taken a pass on the role. So, what, in fact, are they good for?
I do understand why those responsible for this mess don’t want to be publicly “outed” for the fraud, waste, and abuse that they have created. The desire to escape accountability runs deep in bureaucracies, particularly in an Administration that lies about almost everything and consistently refuses to take responsibility for its own innumerable screw-ups. Dishonesty and lack of accountability starts at the top of this rubbish heap.
Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that he did not have the authority to order immigration courts to temporarily shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, confirmed to the federal bench last year, found he did not have jurisdiction to rule on that matter, and the immigration lawyers and detained immigrants seeking a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case.
He pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states legal challenges tied to removal proceedings conducted in immigration courts can only be brought to courts of appeals.
Nichols wrote that “the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy Article III, and also that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will increase as a result of being forced to attend in-person hearings.” But he found the detained immigrants named in the suit do not have “an imminent in-person hearing,” and therefore lack standing.
“More generally, there is no evidence in the record that any of the individual plaintiffs has been forced to appear, or will be forced to appear, at an in-person hearing over his or her request for either a continuance or some way of attending remotely, such as by VTC or teleconference. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The individual plaintiffs have thus failed to establish that they are likely to suffer an imminent injury to their health that is traceable to EOIR’s failure to take different action,” Nichols wrote.
The judge also took issue with immigration lawyer groups who alleged that detained immigrants are being deprived of counsel due to policies implemented during the pandemic.
Nichols said the lawyers “fail to explain” how the policies have caused the immigrants “to be unable to retain an attorney—especially considering that they had been unable to find counsel even before the pandemic and considering that they were able to retain counsel for this suit.”
He further said the immigration lawyers have failed to show that “immigration judges are regularly refusing to deny requests for continuances or requests for telephonic or VTC hearings.”
. . . .
********************************
Those with access to the NLJ (everyone can get 3 free “non-premium” articles per month by registering) can read Jacqueline’s full article and get Judge Nichols’s full opinion at the above link.
A slight clarification of the last sentence in Jacqueline’s full article: “Nichols, during arguments, was concerned about what options detained immigrants have if an immigration judge, which are Article I judges under the control of the Department of Justice, refused to delay an in-person hearing or hold it remotely.”
Immigration Judges are “administrative judges” who work for the Attorney General. Unfortunately, they are not “Article I Judges,” which would make them a true independent judiciary.
Immigration Judgeswould like to beArticle I Judges. Most immigration and judicial experts agree that they should be. There are a number of legislative proposals circulating to establish an independent Article Immigration Court. But, alas, notwithstanding the obvious and pressing need, Congress is nowhere close to legislating the necessary change.
So, these current blatantly unconstitutional “captive courts” operating under the DOJ will continue to stagger on, taking innocent lives and trampling due process and fundamental fairness in the process. Grimly, as I had predicted, it’s apparently going to take some actual dead bodies⚰️of migrants and perhaps their lawyers piling up on the courthouse steps to get either the Article IIIs or Congress to pay serious attention to this unfolding disaster which seems to operate just enough beneath their “radar screens” to allow them to ignore or, as in this case, paper it over.
Jacqueline Thomsen Courts Reporter National Law Journal
DOJ Said Judges Can’t Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a ‘Death Trap.’
Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
. . . .
*******************
Those will full access can go over to the NLJ for Jacqueline’s complete article.
With DOJ lawyers arguing that folks have to “exhaust their administrative remedies” (basically by risking death or serious illness) you get the general tenor of the argument before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in D.C.
I’d be tempted to say that during the pandemic ethical rules have been suspended for DOJ attorneys. But, in my view, that was true even before the pandemic.
And, in their defense, some of their misleading narratives and insane arguments actually WIN in Federal Court, as some Federal Judges are used to deferring to the DOJ and giving their lawyers a pass on both ethical rules and acceptable arguments that generally wouldn’t be extended to private attorneys acting in the same irresponsible manner.
What would be an acceptable response in a better functioning, ethics-biased DOJ: for the lawyers to go back to their “agency clients,” tell them that they won’t defend the indefensible, and advise them to start working immediately with the plaintiffs to develop methods for hearing only the most pressing cases under appropriate health safeguards.
Interestingly, the positions argued by DOJ lawyers are actually putting the lives of their colleagues at EOIR and their fellow Government attorneys at ICE at risk! Perhaps if they “win,” they should be given a chance to risk their lives to represent ICE in Immigration Court! Wonder how their nifty little “exhaustion arguments” would help them ward off the virus.
With 1.4 million cases already in the backlog, it’s not like any one removal more or less during the pandemic is going to make much of a difference. Unlike, perhaps, some other courts built with sufficient space and electronic support, the poorly designed “brandbox” Immigration Courts with marginal, at best, technology, are unhealthy in the best of times. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that there are very many cases other than perhaps bonds or stipulated “grant and release” cases that need to go forward right now.
How many lawyers (on both sides) and Immigration Judges are going to have to die before the Article IIIs finally take notice and put the brakes on the nonsense going on at EOIR?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️
