Why Judge John Bates Embraced 'Undocumented' Over 'Illegal' in DACA Ruling
In his ruling against the Trump administration's move to rescind the DACA immigration program, U.S. District Judge John Bates explained, in a footnote, his reasons for choosing "undocumented" over "illegal."
April 25, 2018 at 01:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. District Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / NLJ
A Washington federal trial judge's ruling Tuesday against the Trump administration's move to end a program that protects certain immigrants from deportation is getting a fair amount of attention for its substance and for the fact the decision was written by a Republican-appointed judge.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2001, called the termination of the program—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA—unlawful. Bates, however, gave the government 90 days to figure out a new way to wind down the program. Two other federal judges issued rulings in support of DACA in recent months, and those decisions are on appeal. Bates was the first Republican-nominated judge to smack the Trump administration.
But there's another element of the decision that's worth noting—the language of the court. Bates explicitly chose not to use the phrase “illegal alien” in his 60-page decision. He went with “undocumented immigrant.”
“Some courts, including the Supreme Court, have referred to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States as 'illegal' instead of 'undocumented,'” Bates wrote in a footnote, which pointed to the 2015 decision in the case Texas v. United States from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
That ruling was an appeal from a Texas judge's injunction in 2015 blocking another immigration program. The Fifth Circuit spotlighted legal writing guru Bryan Garner's 2011 dictionary on legal usage: “The usual and preferable term in [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near gobbledygook,” Garner wrote.
In the Texas trial court, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas had embraced “illegal alien” because, he wrote, “it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.” Hanen cited the high court's 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Credit: David Handschuh/NYLJHanen did not note the Supreme Court's December 2009 ruling in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, which observers said was the first time “undocumented immigrant” appeared in a decision by the justices.
The author of that opinion: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had been confirmed four months earlier. Bates, in his footnote, did mention Sotomayor's decision in weighing what language to use in his ruling against the Trump administration.
“Because both terms appear in the record materials here, and because, as at least one court has noted, 'there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase 'illegal alien' offensive,' the court will use the term 'undocumented,'” Bates said.
The “one court” Bates referred to: Hanen's 2015 opinion imposing a preliminary injunction against the DAPA program, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
Bates' ruling came in a case Jenner & Block filed on behalf of Princeton University, Microsoft Corp. and a DACA beneficiary named Maria De La Cruz. The case was combined with a similar suit filed by the NAACP against the Trump administration.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250