The Trump administration is effectively declaring that the nationâs roughly 700 immigration judges can no longer count on civil service rules that safeguard their independence by protecting them from arbitrary removal, according to a Department of Justice memo that was sent to the judges. The memo from DOJâwhich oversees the immigration courtsâwas flagged for me by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, or IFPTE, the judgesâ union, which believes this will make it far easier to fire judges without cause.
The judges and their representatives fear that this is designed to pave the way for the removal of judges who donât consistently rule against migrants in deportation and asylum casesâand thus frustrate Trump and his hard-line immigration advisers. Replacing them with judges who will more reliably rule against migrants could theoretically speed up the pace of deportations.
âWhat they want to do is fire immigration judges that donât issue rulings to their liking,â said Matthew Biggs, the president of IFPTE, âand replace them with judges that will simply rubber-stamp what President Trump wants.â
This represents a serious escalation of Trumpâs assault on the immigration system. Last month, DOJ fired 20 immigration judges with no public rationale; those were largely probationary officials. Then, last week, DOJ let it be known that it will no longer observe restrictions that constrain the removal of administrative law judges, a category that decides federal government agency cases and doesnât include most immigration judges.
But now, DOJ is signaling that it will disregard restrictions on removal for the broad category of immigration judges as well, according to the DOJ memo, which was addressed to all employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, the agency within the DOJ that oversees the immigration courts. The memo acknowledges that under current law, these judges benefit from âmultiple layers of for-cause removal restrictions,â meaning they canât be fired at will. But it adds that EOIR âmay decline to recognize those restrictions if they are determined to be unconstitutional.â
Translated into plain English, this means that if restrictions on removing immigration judges are âdeterminedâ by the DOJ to be unconstitutional, they will no longer apply, immigration lawyers say. Itâs only a matter of time until this âdeterminationâ is made.
By saying the truthâŠ
That the Senate has an opportunity to vote on SC picks, but that nowhere does it say it needs to happen.
So refusal to hold a vote means implicit approval of the selection.
This was widely talked about at the time, but I understand not everyone was politically active back then, and Iâd like to take the opportunity to thank you for paying attention now and asking questions
I did pay attention, and I saw noone serious think that would be legal to do
The biggest errors was not pushing harder against his first campaign, not pushing harder during the impeachments, letting Jan 6 go without another impeachment, and not calling out the billionaires helping his campaign with the intent to dismantle agencies that protect people, etc.
The SCOTUS appointments were big issues but due to the timing meaning they happened when dems lacked majorities there wasnât much to do about them. Getting Trump out of the office is the only fix.
Only exception wouldâve been SCOTUS reform immediately after Bidenâs election when he had a majority, but the problem there is he couldnât get enough votes for it