Category Archives: Courts

Regarding Illegal Aliens Applying for Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Trump administration’s limitation on illegal aliens’ ability to apply for asylum. The case, Noem v Al Otro Lado, centers on the meaning of “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law: does an alien “arrive” on meeting with immigration officers when the meeting occurs on the Mexican side with no actual entry into the US.

This should be an open-and-shut case. Here’s what 8 US Code § 1158 – Asylum, paragraph (a)(1) says on the matter:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

That’s clear. Present in the United States and brought to the United States means inside—being within the borders of—the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, this statute makes clear that “on the Mexican side” plainly is not inside the United States (to say nothing of the affront to Mexican sovereignty if “on the Mexican side” were taken to mean inside the US.

Section 1225(b) only specifies the process for granting or denying asylum, but this is what its paragraph (a)(1) says that’s relevant to Otro Lado:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.

This is, in its essence, a repeat of the Asylum paragraph above. In the United States explicitly excludes being still on the Mexican side of the border. An alien, illegal or otherwise, must be on the US side of the border—within the US—before he can apply for asylum

Full stop.

The obvious alternative, though, should the Court rule wrongly on this, is to withdraw all US immigration officers from the Mexican side of the border.

Maybe Take the Hint

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the Georgia case against President Donald Trump (R) from when he’d lost his reelection campaign in 2020 and a slate of alternate Electors was created and offered to the US Senate: Fani Willis brought a criminal case against Trump and others over that alternate slate, never minding that doing so is entirely illegal, if only rarely done. As a result of Willis’ own nefarious behaviors, she was thrown off the case by Georgia courts. Now we have the State’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (the body charged with finding a successor to Willis) Executive Director Peter Skandalakis assigning himself to the case.

His selfie appointment is because of ACE’s

The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case. Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment[.].

Maybe Skandalakis should take the hint. It’s a bogus beef, and he would do well to drop it with prejudice.

“Career-Defining”

Posted on by
Reply

The headline lays it out:

Chief Justice Roberts Faces Career-Defining Decision on Trump

The WSJ‘s news writer centered his headline claim on the current Supreme Court case that concerns the authority a President has (or has not) to unilaterally adjust or apply de novo tariffs. This is certainly a major case with serious implications and outcomes. Career-defining, though? Calling it that is nothing but journalistic arrogance. This guy is not the definer of “career-defining;” he’s just one man with an opinion.

Career-defining certainly would be a momentous move with long-lasting effects.

Here’s another momentous move by Roberts, one from a few years ago, and that still is reverberating. That ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the Affordable Care Act to include a tax aspect that Congress had explicitly considered and just as explicitly rejected, was every bit as momentous as anything the Roberts Court might decide regarding Trump’s tariffs. Career-defining? At least as much as the tariff case. That’s my one-man opinion.

A Couple of Election Law Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

I have some, on occasion, and this is one of those occasions. The Supreme Court is considering taking up a case regarding whether a State may (not can) count absentee ballots received after voting day. The particular case involves Louisiana’s law that allows such ballots to be counted if received within five days after voting day; the 5th Circuit court said nope, absentee ballots must be received by voting day to be countable.

Those defending the law appealed to the Supremes, making this argument among others:

Adopting that ruling would require scrapping election laws in about 30 states, lawyers for Mississippi told the court.
“The decision below thus invites nationwide litigation against laws in most States—risking chaos in the next federal elections, particularly given the tendency of election law claims to spur last-minute lawsuits,” they said.

That a Supreme Court ruling upholding the appellate court (the only correct ruling IMNSHO) would invalidate election laws broadly is wholly irrelevant. All that matters here is what our Constitution requires and what statutes that are themselves within the bounds of our Constitution say. The convenience of government is distinctly unimportant.

The second beef, that concern about last-minute lawsuits filed just before an election, is legitimate, but it’s easily handled. States can enact laws (so can the Federal government under its Article I, Section 4 authority) that bar courts hearing lawsuits occurring within [six months] of an election from issuing injunctions or temporary restraining orders that alter the status quo and that bar court rulings that are handed down within those same [six months] from having effect until after the next occurring election.

Lower Court Obstructionism

Posted on by
Reply

In a legal environment in which Federal district court judges routinely block President Donald Trump’s (R) initiatives and the Supreme Court, via Trump emergency appeals, overrule those judges (and the occasional appellate court ruling) more often than those lower court judges deem appropriate, we’re seeing increasing whining from those lower court judges: they’re getting quite cross over not being listened to, all the while pretending not to understand the Supreme Court’s stays of these lower court blocks while the underlying case works its way through the legal system. As The Wall Street Journal‘s news writer put it,

The court, has given Trump much of what he has asked for so far, but the brevity of its orders has flummoxed judges who say there is no way to interpret them.

This is the measure of the lower courts’ defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court lifts the stays explicitly to let the underlying cases concerning the Trump initiatives proceed pending a final judgment. Often, appellate courts and district court judges, in lifting a stay or HIAing one, will say they’re doing so because they think the relevant party to the litigation is likely to prevail in the underlying case. The Supreme Court cannot say such things without prejudicing its eventual ruling in the case while it’s before those lower courts. The Court does say, often but not always, that it’s staying a case while the case wends its way. Even in those cases where the Court does not say, though, that much is clear to anyone reading with objective eyes.

These district (and appellate) judges know that.

Here’s an example of lower court defiance in the judge’s attempts at obstruction:

“Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect the hierarchy of the federal court system,” Gorsuch wrote.
US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts fired back at Gorsuch a couple of weeks later when she ruled the administration’s cuts to Harvard’s research funding were unconstitutional. In a footnote, Burroughs said it was “unhelpful and unnecessary” to criticize judges for defying the Supreme Court “when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape, where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus.”

What part of set that precedent aside is unclear to this judge? If it appears to her to be set aside, then from her perspective it is set aside. Is Burroughs really insisting she’s unable to follow a simple ruling without having in hand a long, detailed dissertation on why the ruling exists and why she must follow it? Would that ruling need to be written in words of one syllable or less? If so, she needs to find another line of work where her bosses have the time and inclination to hold her hand every step of the way.

On the other hand, it sounds like this judge is letting her disdain for Trump lead her to disrespect for and defiance of the Supreme Court. In that case, too, she needs to find another line of work, maybe with Bill Kristol.