On Tuesday, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a district judge in D.C. who is often touted as the next liberal SCOTUS pick, issued an injunction on two potential deportations of illegal aliens because she questioned the legitimacy of a lesson plan at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for training asylum adjudicators.
Thus, two illegal aliens from El Salvador who were ordered deported through the expedited removal process after losing their bid for asylum petitioned the judge to block the deportations, even though statute stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review such a case.
As the Congressional Research Service explains of expedited removal, a statue that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, "The jurisdictional bar applies to claims that an immigration officer improperly placed an alien in expedited removal proceedings; challenges to an immigration officer's credible fear determination; arguments challenging the procedures and policies implemented by DHS to expedite removal; and claims contesting the expedited removal order itself."
If she hasn't determined that she even has jurisdiction to decide the case, how can she then definitively decide to issue an injunction? As Chris Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told CR, "I have never heard that this 'jurisdiction-to-decide' includes the jurisdiction to issue injunctions. How can a court exercise a power it hasn't yet decided it has? In fact, staying removal doesn't help the court decide whether it has jurisdiction to stay removal."
The law is so clear that even the Ninth Circuit said in 2011, "Congress expressly deprived courts of jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an expedited removal order." July 10, 2019.
It is impossible to pass laws stronger than the expedited removal law in 1996, which categorically kicked the courts out of these cases.
If our response to courts violating the law and hearing the cases they are forbidden to touch is to pass new laws that will be ignored by the courts, we are fiddling with a futile exercise while our border burns.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/nullifying-immigration-law-judge-illegally-puts-injunction-lesson-plans/
Thus, two illegal aliens from El Salvador who were ordered deported through the expedited removal process after losing their bid for asylum petitioned the judge to block the deportations, even though statute stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review such a case.
As the Congressional Research Service explains of expedited removal, a statue that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, "The jurisdictional bar applies to claims that an immigration officer improperly placed an alien in expedited removal proceedings; challenges to an immigration officer's credible fear determination; arguments challenging the procedures and policies implemented by DHS to expedite removal; and claims contesting the expedited removal order itself."
If she hasn't determined that she even has jurisdiction to decide the case, how can she then definitively decide to issue an injunction? As Chris Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told CR, "I have never heard that this 'jurisdiction-to-decide' includes the jurisdiction to issue injunctions. How can a court exercise a power it hasn't yet decided it has? In fact, staying removal doesn't help the court decide whether it has jurisdiction to stay removal."
The law is so clear that even the Ninth Circuit said in 2011, "Congress expressly deprived courts of jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an expedited removal order." July 10, 2019.
It is impossible to pass laws stronger than the expedited removal law in 1996, which categorically kicked the courts out of these cases.
If our response to courts violating the law and hearing the cases they are forbidden to touch is to pass new laws that will be ignored by the courts, we are fiddling with a futile exercise while our border burns.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/nullifying-immigration-law-judge-illegally-puts-injunction-lesson-plans/
No comments:
Post a Comment