Dem
47
GOP
53
During his campaign, Donald Trump ran on stepping up immigration enforcement against violent criminals. But it turns out that there aren't many undocumented immigrants committing violent crimes, so they had to expand the playing field. In order to do that, the administration had to radically change the approach to detention. Trump (well, let's be honest, Stephen Miller) has reversed 30 years of policy and is now locking up anyone who could be in violation of an immigration law (which is not a crime, by the way, but a civil offense) no matter where they are. And the roundups have been largely based on racial profiling, which results in more than a few U.S. citizens being caught up in the dragnet.
This mandatory detention policy has resulted from a reinterpretation of the phrase "applicant for admission." Immigration law allows for arrests of "applicants for admission," which are those who have arrived at the border seeking permission to enter. Those at the border have fewer rights and are eligible for expedited removal. Typically, detentions are short and removal is swift. If they can show a credible fear of returning to their home country, which is the first step in claiming asylum, and pass what's called a credible fear interview, they are usually released to a family member or sponsor and given a date to return to immigration court for a proceeding on asylum.
What has happened is that Miller and company are claiming that an "applicant for admission" is anyone in the country, no matter how long they've been here. According to the administration, they are not entitled to any more rights than someone presenting themselves at the border. As it turns out, this approach is illegal and has been uniformly rejected by federal court judges. A study by Politico found that more than 100 judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Trump, have found the practice to be a violation of immigration laws and constitutional due process rights. But this practice continues nonetheless. In Chicago and elsewhere, ICE and CBP are engaging in mass arrests of people who are law-abiding and have been in the country for decades, paying taxes, raising families and contributing to their communities. With all the arrests, the government is having to spend millions of dollars for private prisons to house them. They are holding people at places like Broadview, which is a processing facility unequipped for long-term detention. A judge recently found conditions there to be a violation of federal law and ordered it to be cleaned up. People are being forced to sleep next to overflowing toilets. The inhumanity is stunning. And none of this is necessary and is a complete waste of money and resources—where is DOGE when we really need it? All of this is just to satisfy some arbitrary number Miller came up with to terrorize as many brown people as possible.
Some of the cases are class actions but none so far has resulted in a nationwide injunction, so it's business as usual for designated hatchetman Greg Bovino, the CBP chief who is heading up the Chicago operation. The Courts have also found that Bovino and CBP are violating the rights of protesters and journalists by using tear gas and pepper bullets against people exercising their First Amendment rights. In fact, Judge Sara Ellis recently found that Bovino lied when he claimed a protester had thrown a rock at him, which prompted him to throw a tear gas canister. In fact, bodycam footage shows him chatting amiably with his officers before casually pulling a canister from his belt and tossing it into a nearby crowd. She issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of such tactics. And Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon U.S. District Court, a Trump appointee, recently issued a permanent injunction barring Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Portland. This follows a similar order prohibiting the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.
You would think that all these violations might cause the Trump administration to alter their approach. Wait, who are we kidding, no one expects that. In fact, if you had Todd-Blanche-makes-a-completely-unhinged-attack-on-the-judiciary on your bingo card, you win. At a gathering of the Federalist Society's annual lawyer's conference, the Trump personal lawyer turned "deputy attorney general" attacked the judiciary, saying "it's a war, man." He railed against so-called "rogue activist judges" despite the fact that judges appointed by presidents of both political parties are routinely finding Trump's tactics to be illegal. He then urged conservative lawyers to join him. Given that they've purged around 5,500 attorneys and staff from the DOJ, it's not a surprise that they're a little shorthanded.
One judge has decided that enough is enough and is speaking out. In fact, he retired from the bench in order to be able to speak candidly. Judge Mark Wolf, a Reagan appointee, announced his retirement because "I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House's assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable..." This is the equivalent of pulling the fire alarm on a five-alarm fire.
And now we're seeing the cases the administration is bringing for purely partisan reasons fall apart. Grand juries are refusing to indict for felony assault in cases that shouldn't even be in federal court. And juries are refusing to convict for misdemeanor assault charges—the sandwich guy was the latest to be acquitted. And these are not hung juries, they are acquittals. So it's not a case of one or two holdouts, these are unanimous verdicts. And it's looking more and more like the James Comey and Letitia James cases will also fall apart soon for any number of reasons.
The judiciary is the last line of defense against this would-be authoritarian regime, so it's little wonder that Trump and his underlings are trying to paint the entire system as partisan and illegitimate. Instead, the courts' decisions have been thoughtful, thorough, well-reasoned and based on the evidence and the law. Someday, maybe we'll be able to say that about the executive branch of our government. (L)