Tag: judicial campaigns
Deportation 'Error': When Judicial Pigs Fly -- In Formation!

Deportation 'Error': When Judicial Pigs Fly -- In Formation!

Our alleged Supreme Court last night upheld a district court’s order to return the Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whom the government had wrongfully deported to El Salvador, where he has been held in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center prison for the last 26 days.

“The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” The Supreme Court's order, issued in response to an appeal by Garcia that he had been wrongfully seized and deported along with some 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members, cautioned District Court Judge Paula Xinis that she should define more precisely what she had meant by the word “effectuate” in her order to return Garcia, whom she said the government had deported by a “grievous error.”

The Trump administration had alleged without evidence that Garcia is a member of the violent street gang MS-13. Garcia has been a resident of the United States with protected status for 10 years, during which time he has never been arrested. He is married to a U.S. citizen. Judge Xinis found that the “evidence” against Garcia “consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.” Garcia has been a resident of Maryland and claimed never to have been to New York.

For its part, the Trump DOJ admitted in court that Garcia had been deported in an “administrative error” and claimed that there was nothing that could be done to return him to the U.S. because he was being held by a foreign nation, to which the U.S. government had turned him over. Garcia had been given no due process to challenge his deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. In a separate order earlier in the week, Chief Justice John Roberts had temporarily allowed the government to continue using the 200-plus year old law but said that future deportees had to be given due process notice of the proceedings against them and were entitled to challenge their deportation in court. Garcia had been given none of the due process now ordered for future use of the Alien Enemies Act by the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, signed a “statement” as part of the court’s otherwise unsigned order. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Trump DOJ had asserted that it could refuse to return Garcia to the U.S., against the order of a federal judge, “for no reason recognized by law,” and that the Trump administration position “implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” `We could get down in the weeds as to why the court’s order was issued without naming its author or giving even a hint of what the vote might have been, but the most likely reason is that Roberts, Alito, Thomas et. al. had no interest in putting their names on a legal ruling that is bound to draw fire from Donald Trump and his political and legal sycophants.

The Supreme Court’s order in the Garcia matter is a victory for the wrongfully deported Salvadoran migrant but does not address either the fate of the Venezuelans deported along with him or the use of the Alien Enemies act to justify their deportation. The Alien Enemies Act allows the government to deport persons in a “time of war” who are considered dangerous to the country’s national security. There has been no declaration of war against Venezuela or any other country. The deported Venezuelans, many of whom claim they are not gang members and were rounded up on the basis of their soccer team tattoos and nothing else, are not “enemies” under any definition of that word.

How much leeway the Supreme Court will end up giving the Trump administration to use the Alien Enemies Act is not yet known, but today’s order provides hope that at least some due process will be observed in the deportation of migrants from this country. Under today’s order, the Trump administration will be forced to return at least one wrongfully deported migrant, and the court ordered the government to “be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps” with respect to the return of Garcia. That smells suspiciously like judicial oversight of the Trump DOJ and Department of State, which until this moment have acted in their enforcement of the laws and in judicial proceedings as if they are being run by a criminal gang.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Supreme Court Endorses Ban On Judges Seeking Campaign Cash

Supreme Court Endorses Ban On Judges Seeking Campaign Cash

By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Florida’s ban on judicial candidates directly soliciting campaign funds.

In a ruling that affects many of the 39 states where voters elect trial or appellate judges, the high court concluded that the direct-solicitation ban does not violate the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.

“A state’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor.”

The ruling split the court along somewhat unusual lines, as Roberts’ fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, as did frequent swing vote Anthony Kennedy. Two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, largely sided with Roberts’ conclusion, but broke from part of his reasoning.

The court’s bottom line in the case called Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, though, is a victory for judicial campaign fundraising limits. Coming from the conservative-dominated court, the ruling is also a notable good day for the frequently embattled advocates of campaign finance reform.

“Most states with elected judges have determined that drawing a line between personal solicitation by candidates and solicitation by committees is necessary to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” Roberts wrote. “These considered judgments deserve our respect.”

The case arose from Lanell Williams-Yulee’s bid for a seat as a county court judge in Hillsborough County, Florida. The county includes the city of Tampa. During her campaign kickoff in September 2009, Williams-Yulee signed a mass-mailed letter that asked for contributions, with recommended amounts ranging from $25 to $500.

Incumbent Judge Dick Greco, Jr., easily defeated Williams-Yulee in the August 2010 balloting, winning 80 percent to 20 percent. Williams-Yulee subsequently lost a later three-way judicial race in 2012.

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Williams-Yulee, alleging she had violated a provision in the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct. The code states that “a candidate…for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not personally solicit campaign funds.”

According to the American Bar Association, 30 of the 39 states that elect trial or appellate judges have adopted similar restrictions. These other states include Idaho, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.

Williams-Yulee received a public reprimand and was ordered to pay $1,860.30 to cover costs. She and her allies argued the punishment intruded on her ability to speak, including on matters of pressing public importance.

“Neither the court nor the state identifies the slightest evidence that banning requests for contributions will substantially improve public trust in judges,” Scalia wrote in dissent.

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy President Caroline Fredrickson countered with a statement Wednesday that praised the decision as recognizing “the corrosive effect money has had in judicial elections,” and as one that will “help stem the trend of politicization that has been occurring in the state courts.”

The liberal organization is one of several that have studied the growing role of big money in state-level judicial elections. Between 1990 and 1999, judicial candidates raised approximately $83.3 million. Judicial candidates then raised $206.9 million over the next 10 years, Emory University Law School Professor Joanna M. Shepherd reported in the Duke Law Journal.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the country today is the impact of money on politics, and the trend of special interest groups pouring money into efforts to defeat or elect judges” Tallahassee-based attorney Barry Richard, who represented the Florida Bar in the case, said in an interview Wednesday.
Richard added that it was a “great relief” to learn that the Florida rule will survive; otherwise, he said, “the door would be open” to more problematic judicial fundraising.

Photo: Boston Public Library via Flickr

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World