DOJ moves forward with plan that would allow activist judges to invent new immigration-laws.

[DetlefK]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-s-new-attorney-general-launches-fresh-13761430.php

The Justice Department is on the verge of issuing rule changes that would make it easier for a handful of appellate immigration judges to declare their rulings binding on the entire immigration system, The Chronicle has learned. The changes could also expand the use of single-judge, cursory decisions at the appellate level — all at the same time as a hiring spree that could reshape the court.

...

Last week, the Justice Department revived a proposed regulation originally initiated during the George W. Bush administration to allow the 21-judge appeals court system that hears immigration cases more latitude to issue cursory opinions without explanation. It would also allow the court to set precedents with only a small minority of appeals judges participating, which could sharply accelerate the administration’s ability to make changes to immigration law that wouldn’t require congressional action.

...

The proposed Justice Department regulation change has two main parts. First, it would allow the immigration courts’ appellate arm, the Board of Immigration Appeals, to more easily issue “affirmances without opinion.” Those affirmances are when a single appeals judge, rather than a three-judge panel, upholds a lower court’s deportation decision without issuing an explanation.

...

Currently, the appeals board can declare a binding precedent only if a majority of all permanent sitting judges vote to do so. The regulation would do away with that requirement and allow a two-judge majority of any three-judge panel that decides a case to declare it a precedent.

...

“Precedent decisions live on forever, and so once they have that, they’re going to work on issuing precedent decisions, as many as they possibly can,” said Rena Cutlip-Mason, who now works at Tahirih Justice Center, an organization that defends immigrant women and children fleeing gender-based violence. “There’s going to be a lot more precedents, and it’s hard to say what those precedents will be.”

Broad, generalized sentences, without hearings and based on judicial precedents that have no written legal basis.





I'm so old, I remember when Republicans used to hate activist judges... 10 years ago.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Look, I know this is all bad, but we need to thank the nose holders and the

"I just cant trust her's" of the world otherwise we would have the most qualified human being who ever lived as prez doing a fantastic job

I cant do this anymore, my rage is going to kill me

and to think there are people RIGHT NOW looking for negative things to say about ANY democrat, like taking $1000 from pharmaceuticals

I know, lets throw out the Dems who did that so we can get cons who took MILLIONS and will IMPRISON anyone who disagrees with them

[Iliyah]

2. I don't think they will work in the GOPer's favor . . .

[malaise]

3. Judges don't pass laws n/t

[DetlefK]

4. In a government with separation of powers they do not.

[Me.]

5. That Was My Immediate Thought

These people are such ignoramuses...but perhaps we should be grateful because if they were smart they'd be doing even more damage.