DOJ Said Judges Can't Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a 'Death Trap.'
Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
April 15, 2020 at 06:35 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Immigration lawyer groups, as well as five detained immigrants with upcoming hearings, filed a lawsuit earlier this month challenging in-person proceedings being held during the health crisis. Last week, with the assistance of attorneys at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking a short pause for the proceedings while the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the courts, implements policies to safely protect participants in light of the pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols of the District of Columbia, who joined the federal bench last year, heard phone arguments on the motion Wednesday. He questioned attorneys from both sides about what kind of options detained immigrants have if an immigration judge denied a request to delay a hearing, a scenario referenced in declarations by immigration lawyers filed by the plaintiffs.
"If EOIR issued guidance to immigration judges directing them to never grant a request for continuance based on the coronavirus, is it your view that directive would be unreviewable because of the INA provisions, except in connection with the individual case" brought through the immigration court system, Nichols asked, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Law. The statute generally blocks immigrants from taking their cases to federal court until other options are exhausted.
DOJ attorney Brian Ward said that was the case, but also pointed to immigrants being allowed to eventually petition a court of appeals in their cases as meaning the federal statute "doesn't fully eliminate jurisdiction."
Matthew Slater, a partner with Cleary who argued for the motion Wednesday, rebutted the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute. He said in blocking judicial review tied to immigrant removal hearings, "Congress should not have believed to have adopted … a suicide pact or a death trap."
"I think we have to deal with the reality of what we have on the ground right now," Slater added.
Nichols also raised the prospect of what would happen if an immigration judge "acted inappropriately" in not granting requests to delay scheduled in-person hearings because of the virus. Ward replied there is no evidence presented in the case to suggest that is happening; Slater later said the plaintiffs had filed declarations from immigration attorneys indicating otherwise.
"If an immigration judge basically forces someone to show up to an in-person hearing, there is no way to remedy the risk the detained alien has been put through," Nichols said, in explaining why he was posing the hypothetical scenarios to counsel.
The Justice Department lawyers also argued it would be inappropriate for the court to issue an expansive order halting proceedings in the dozens of immigration courts across the U.S. Ward, joined by fellow DOJ attorney Alex Halaska, pointed to guidance issued by EOIR and ICE on conducting proceedings remotely when possible.
Ward further argued that, just as the federal judiciary has allowed individual courts and judges to make determinations on what kind of hearings should be held during the pandemic, immigration courts and judges should be given that same level of flexibility.
Slater said the plaintiffs were not asking Nichols to order the immigration courts to do anything. Rather, he said, they wanted Nichols to order DOJ officials who had authority over those courts to pause the proceedings while they came up with appropriate national guidance to ensure the health and safety of those who would typically attend the hearings, including immigration judges, attorneys and the detained immigrants.
Nichols did not rule on the temporary restraining order at the conclusion of Wednesday's arguments. He closed the hearing by saying he is "well aware of how serious the coronavirus is."
"Nothing I said today, none of the questions I asked should be read as inconsistent with the view that this is a very serious matter on which the federal government and the states have taken very serious actions," Nichols said. "The question is whether or to what extent this court should involve itself in the very specific issues involved here."
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 AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
1 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
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