Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Reading the fine print in the Abrego-Garcia Case

Thomas Dickinson
@ThomasDickinson
Join to bookmark17likesJoin to like20comments

I'm beginning to wonder how many of the judges, lawyers, law professors, and reporters who have such strong views on the Trump administration's removal of "a Maryland father" to El Salvador have actually read the underlying Immigration Court decisions with any degree of care.

Guessing not many. Maybe even none.

Well, I've read it. It's only 14 pages long.

The October 2019 decision that granted his request for withholding of removal to El Salvador discusses all of the dangers he claims he'd face if he returned there.

But then the immigration judge concludes -- and maybe this is a typo? -- that it would be too dangerous to return him to (wait for it) GUATEMALA!

Probably a mistake by the judge, since the entire rest of the decision focuses on El Salvador. But the fact is that the decision does not clearly prohibit his return to El Salvador. If anything, it appears to prohibit his removal to Guatemala.

Maybe at some point, some of the lawyers defending the Trump administration, the judges considering the case, or the reporters covering it will pick up on this.

I'm not holding my breath.

Recommended by Members

Discussion (20)

  • EJHill@EJHill
    Thomas Dickinson (View Post):
    I’m beginning to wonder how many of the judges, lawyers, law professors, and reporters who have such strong views on the Trump Administration’s removal of “a Maryland father” to El Salvador have actually read the underlying Immigration Court decisions with any degree of care.

    This is a case of being careful what you ask for. Since the 1980s Article III courts have been ruled by the "Chevron Doctrine" of deference to administrative judges such as the Immigration Courts*. SCOTUS just recently put this on its head. In his concurring opinion last June Mr. Justice Thomas argued that Chevron had required judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.” The court giveth and the court taketh away.

    *Immigration judges are term limited and appointed by the Attorney General and do not receive confirmation from the Senate.

  • Thomas Dickinson@ThomasDickinson
    ReplyingtoEJHill

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Thomas Dickinson (View Post):

    Thomas Dickinson (View Post):
    I’m beginning to wonder how many of the judges, lawyers, law professors, and reporters who have such strong views on the Trump Administration’s removal of “a Maryland father” to El Salvador have actually read the underlying Immigration Court decisions with any degree of care.

    This is a case of being careful what you ask for. Since the 1980s Article III courts have been ruled by the “Chevron Doctrine” of deference to administrative judges such as the Immigration Courts*. SCOTUS just recently put this on its head. In his concurring opinion last June Mr. Justice Thomas argued that Chevron had required judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.” The court giveth and the court taketh away.

    *Immigration judges are term limited and appointed by the Attorney General and do not receive confirmation from the Senate.

    Chevron deference had to do with statutory interpretation, requiring courts to defer to an agency's plausible interpretation of its empowering statutes. It never applied to factfinding. And under the applicable immigration statutes, judicial review is very limited when reviewing decisions of Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Review.

+15 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 20 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.