By Robert Romano

In 2019, President Joe Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a U.S. district judge, blocked a Trump administration policy providing for expedited removal of illegal aliens despite a federal law explicitly providing for it for aliens who had been in the U.S for under two years.

Prior to former President Donald Trump making the administrative change in the execution of the law, expedited removals were narrowly enforced for aliens caught within 100 miles of the U.S. border. But in July 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new policy where the expedited removals would apply wherever an alien was apprehended, not just near the border, as provided for under federal law.

According to then Acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan, “The new designation adds one more tool for DHS — utilizing specific authority from Congress — to confront the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis on the Southwest border and throughout the country… We are past the breaking point and must take all appropriate action to enforce the law, along the U.S. borders and within the country’s interior. This designation makes it clear that if you have no legal right to be here, we will remove you.”

Federal law explicitly allows for expedited deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of exactly those illegal aliens described in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225 (b)(1)(A)(iii)(II): “An alien … who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this subparagraph.”

And under subsection (I), the Secretary of Homeland Security has singular discretion to implement the policy: “The [Secretary] may apply clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph to any or all aliens described in subclause (II) as designated by the [Secretary]. Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the [Secretary] and may be modified at any time.”

But despite the explicit grant of authority, Judge Jackson attempted to apply Administrative Procedures Act requirements by saying it was an agency rule, subject to public comment, to what was actually an executive order by former President Donald Trump: “If a policy decision that an agency makes is of sufficient consequence that it qualifies as an agency rule, then arbitrariness in deciding the contours of that rule — e.g., decision making by Ouija board or dart board, rock/paper/scissors, or even the Magic 8 Ball — simply will not do.”

Additionally, Jackson argued that expedited removal would make it harder for asylum seekers to have their cases heard: “There is no evident consideration of the considerable downsides of adopting a policy that, in many respects, could significantly impact people’s everyday lives in many substantial, tangible, and foreseeable ways.”

Jackson was among a cacophony of federal courts throughout the Trump era that acted on a partisan basis against legal immigration actions by the President, arbitrarily striking down or applying injunctions, not because they were illegal but because they were done by former President Trump.

Ultimately and unsurprisingly, in 2020, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned Judge Jackson, ruling in favor of the Trump administration and noting that the law explicitly meant what it said: “because Congress committed the judgment whether to expand expedited removal to the Secretary’s ‘sole and unreviewable discretion,’ 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I), the Secretary’s decision is not subject to review under the APA’s standards for agency decision-making. Nor is it subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.”

In Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 Supreme Court decision that upheld the judicial branch’s power of judicial review, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshal, the proper role of the court is to “say what the law is.” That is their job.

This was a case where the law clearly states expedited removal of aliens is solely up to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no question what the law says.  Judge Jackson simply ignored the law, and that is something that the Senate would do well to consider in deciding whether or not to confirm her.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2022/02/ketanji-brown-jackson-moved-to-block-expedited-removal-of-illegal-aliens-despite-an-explicit-federal-law-providing-for-it/

Video: Germany awakens to Russian threat, plans new natural gas terminals, increased military spending

 

To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2daLEDgTfE

---

 

Senate Judiciary Committee must fully and completely vet Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Feb. 28, 2022, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to fully and completely vet President Joe Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:

"President Joe Biden has the Article II power to appoint anyone he deems appropriate to be on the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Senate has the same constitutional responsibility to fully and completely vet Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will be a lifetime appointment. This legislative check on both the executive and judicial branches makes the Senate the last of defense of the Constitution when it comes to appointments, making certain that the court is only filled with serious jurists and not political activists. 

"It is important that the Senate Judiciary Committee engage in a rigorous and thorough examination of Judge Jackson's record, philosophy and qualifications. Normally a nominee has an extensive appeals court record, but Judge Jackson only has two written appellate court majority decisions. It is up to the Senate to review her political biases and writings with an eye toward ascertaining her ability to be an independent member of the Supreme Court who follows what the law says — and not her personal preferences."

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2022/02/senate-judiciary-committee-must-fully-and-completely-vet-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson/

---

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured commentary from the Federalist, Margot Cleveland updates readers on the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel John Durham into the Clinton campaign providing false information to the Justice Department and intelligence agencies accusing former President Donald Trump of being a Russian agent:

4 New Things We Just Learned About The Special Counsel Investigation

By Margot Cleveland

Since Friday, several developments have exposed more of the behind-the-scenes details of the special counsel investigation into Spygate, including the public release of the deposition of Tech Executive-1, Rodney Joffe. Joffe’s deposition, coupled with other details previously known, reveals several significant facts while highlighting the many questions that remain unanswered.

Here’s what we learned and what investigative trails require further probing.

1. Rodney Joffe Pled the Fifth Twice

Earlier this month, the Russian-connected Alfa Bank filed a motion in a Florida state court seeking an extension of time to serve the numerous “John Doe” defendants it had sued there in June 2020. Alfa Bank had sued “John Doe, et al.” as stand-ins for the defendants it claimed were responsible for executing “a highly sophisticated cyberattacking scheme to fabricate apparent communications between [Alfa Bank] and the Trump Organization” in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

After filing suit, Alfa Bank began discovery in an attempt to learn the identity of the individuals responsible for what the large, privately owned Russian bank alleged was the creation of a fake computer trail connecting it to the Trump Organization. Among others Alfa Bank sought information from was Joffe, the man identified as Tech Executive-1 in Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.

Joffe’s attempts to quash Alfa Bank’s subpoena failed. On February 11, 2022, the tech executive alleged by Durham to have exploited sensitive data from an executive branch office of the federal government to mine for derogatory information on Trump sat for his deposition. On Friday, an internet sleuth discovered the public filing of Joffe’s deposition, which revealed that Joffe had finally been deposed by Alfa Bank.

In addition to revealing that Joffe’s deposition had taken place, the transcript from the deposition established that Durham had asked to interview Joffe more than a year earlier, but Joffe refused to speak with Durham’s team. After Joffe refused to submit to a voluntary interview, the special counsel’s office subpoenaed him to testify before a grand jury.

Joffe told Alfa Bank lawyers that he refused to answer questions before the grand jury, exercising his Fifth Amendment rights. The former Neustar tech executive likewise asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in response to a subpoena for documents served by the special counsel’s office.

To read the rest online: https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/28/4-new-things-we-just-learned-about-the-special-counsel-investigation/

---

 

Unsubscribe or Manage Your Preferences