Administrative law judge independence must be protected and not neglected. The late U.S. Department of Labor Chief Administrative Law Judge Nahum Litt and the late Judge Charles P, Rippey, my mentors, supported the Administrative Law Judge Corps Act, which would have provided for judicial independence. It was supported by Senator Howell Heflin (D-Alabama), former Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court.
As my clients and Idocumented in the American Bar Association Judges' Journal, and as reported in the ABA Journal, administrative law judge must be protected and not neglected to assure justice is done. I was honored to represent a majority of the administrative law judges in the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Indian Probate Judges, harassed, intimidated and threatened with firing for insisting onnjudicial independence. ttps://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1500&context=naalj
From The New York Times:
Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Free Speech Lawsuit From Immigration Judges
The case, brought by the union representing immigration judges, could have implications for other workplace claims brought by government officials.
Reporting from Washington
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to immediately halt alawsuit brought by immigration judges challenging restrictions on their public speaking engagements.
The court’s order, a placeholder, rejects a request by the Trump administration that the justices said had “not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm” at this stage of the litigation. There were no noted dissents.
Immigration judges sued over a Biden-era policy that prohibits them from making statements in their personal capacities about immigration or the agency that employs them. The National Association of Immigration Judges said such restrictions violated the judges’ First Amendment rights and interfered with their ability to guest lecture at universities and to speak to community groups about matters of public importance.
But the immediate issue for the Supreme Court concerned the proper venue for resolving employee complaints. It is a question that took on new meaning after President Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel and the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, administrative agencies that are typically the first stop for such claims by federal employees. The outcome could have implications for other claims brought by federal government officials related to the conditions of their employment.
The Trump administration has separately fired immigration judges across the country. The judges are part of an administrative court system and make decisions about asylum claims, deportations and other related matters. They are overseen by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division of the Justice Department.
The justices’ order came in response to an emergency application from D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, who asked them to pause the lawsuit temporarily while the administration seeks more formal review by the Supreme Court. In its response on Friday, the court said the administration could re-up its request if the district court took action before the justices have decided whether to formally review the matter.
Mr. Sauer warned that a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to move ahead threatened “to wreak havoc” if the justices did not step in to block it.
Lawyers for the immigration judges had urged the court to deny the administration’s request to stop the group’s challenge, referring to the policy as a gag order and arguing that the suit needed to proceed expeditiously so it could be lifted.
In a statement on Friday, they said the court should reject the government’s upcoming petition for review. “The restrictions on immigration judges’ free speech rights are unconstitutional, and it’s intolerable that this prior restraint is still in place,” said Ramya Krishnan, a lawyer for the group and a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute.
In 2023, a district court judge dismissed the association’s case, saying the immigration judges were required by law to channel their claims through an administrative agency process. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived the case because of the status of the government agencies that hear employee complaints. A three-judge panel said it was not clear that the independent bodies were able to receive, review and resolve federal employee claims.
The panel sent the case back to the lower court to consider whether Mr. Trump’s firing of the former special counsel and the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board had undermined the ability of those agencies to function such that the employees should be allowed to sue directly in federal court.
The Trump administration filed its application to the Supreme Court in late November.
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Times from Washington.
Our Coverage of the Supreme Court
Immigration Judges: The Supreme Court declined to immediately halt a suit brought by judges over a Biden-era policy that prohibits them from making statements in their personal capacities about immigration or the agency that employs them.
Death Penalty Case on Intellectual Disability: The court struggled with the question of how states should assess intellectual disabilities to decide which capital defendants are spared the death penalty.
Campaign Finance Limits: Justices grappled with whether to remove campaign finance limits in a major challenge to political campaign funding that could undercut one of the Democrats’ financial advantages going into the midterms.
Trump’s Push to Oust Officials: President Trump has repeatedly ousted leaders of independent agencies despite federal laws meant to shield those regulators from politics. A ruling in the president’s favor in the case before the court, which deals with his attempt to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, would be a major expansion of presidential authority. Here are the independent agencies that could be affected.
No comments:
Post a Comment