Immigration Judges Sue DOJ, Alleging Unconstitutional Gag on Speech
It's the latest clash between the immigration judges' union and the Justice Department, after DOJ officials pushed to decertify the union.
July 01, 2020 at 09:47 AM
3 minute read
A union of immigration judges is suing the Department of Justice over a policy allegedly restricting them from speaking publicly about immigration and other issues in violation of their constitutional rights, the latest escalation of tensions between the union and the federal department where they work.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Association of Immigration Judges by attorneys with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Virginia attorney Victor Glasberg, says DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review in 2017 began requiring the judges to seek preapproval to speak in their own capacity, and not on behalf of the office.
That was replaced earlier this year with a "more restrictive policy," which mandates the judges cannot speak publicly about immigration or DOJ policies, and must obtain approval to speak, write or talk with members of the media about any other topic.
The lawsuit notes the policy was implemented during a series of changes in the immigration system and that the immigration judges are "uniquely positioned to inform the public on these issues, but the 2020 policy prevents them from doing so."
The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, also charges that the policy blocks immigration judges from discussing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on immigration courts and detained immigrants.
"The interests of immigration judges in engaging in the speech restrained by the policy is substantial, and so is the public's interest in hearing it," the court filing reads. "There is an ongoing national debate about the wisdom and fairness of recent changes to immigration laws and policies and about the effect of those changes on the immigration court system. Immigration judges have unique insights to contribute to this discussion."
Attorneys for NAIJ will file a motion for a preliminary injunction alongside the complaint, asking a federal judge to block the policy. "NAIJ is likely to succeed on the merits of its First and Fifth Amendment claims; absent a preliminary injunction, immigration judges will continue to suffer the irreparable injury of being silenced during a time of extraordinary public interest in immigration law and policy; and the balance of equities and the public interest favor an injunction," the draft filing reads.
Immigration judges, unlike Article III judges, are housed in the Department of Justice and are therefore not fully independent from the executive branch.
This is not the first public clash between the immigration judges' union and DOJ's EOIR. The federal office in 2018 filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, asking them to decertify the judges' union. The union protested and filed its own petition against EOIR, complaining authorities didn't provide them with information needed to respond to the union petition and of a white nationalist blog post included in a DOJ roundup sent to immigration court staff.
A FLRA regional attorney held two days of hearings earlier this year on whether to decertify the union and has not yet issued a ruling.
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 All3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readPresidential Immunity Doesn't Block Trump's NY Criminal Prosecution, Judge Rules
DC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readJustices to Decide if Fuel Industry Can Sue Over California’s EV Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
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