Name: Immigration Judges Group Sues DOJ Over Speech Restriction | Law & Crime
Brand: lawandcrime.com
SKU: lawandcrime-com-282
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Immigration Judges Group Sues DOJ Over Speech Restriction | Law & Crime

preview

Sharecopy linkThe National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a policy that prohibits immigration judges from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration law or policies.The lawsuit, filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claims that the restrictions impose an unconstitutional system of prior restraint on the judges’ protected speech.A similar but less restrictive rule was first instituted in 2017 by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) – the Department of Justice agency that oversees U.S. immigration courts – which required immigration judges who wished to speak publicly to first receive pre-approval on the content of the proposed speech. But in January, EOIR , “categorically prohibit[ing]” immigration judges from “speaking in their personal capacities about immigration law or policy or about EOIR programs or policies” while requiring pre-approval to speak on all other topics.“The 2020 Policy imposes a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, people do not surrender their free-speech rights when they accept government employment,” the complaint stated.&nbsp;“They retain their rights, as citizens, to speak on matters of public importance, and the government can silence them only if it can show that its interest in doing so outweighs the employees’ interests in speaking and the public’s interest in hearing what they have to say.”According to an email from EOIR’s director, a “good metric” for when the policy applied was whenever immigration judges were “speaking with more than one non-DOJ person about EOIR.”The NAIJ argues that the government simply cannot satisfy the requirements to show that its interest in preventing immigration judges from engaging in free speech on issues of significant public concern is substantial enough to justify such sweeping restrictions.The lawsuit, which was served on Attorney General William Barr and EOIR director James McHenry, also claimed that immigration judges have recently been banned from making any comments regarding the global pandemic and its effect on immigration courts and detainees–despite EOIR refusing to close immigration courts and announcing its intention to resume in-person hearings.“These changes have already had, and will continue to have, profound implications for public health, but few immigration judges have felt free to speak out. As officers of the [NAIL], a handful of immigration judges have been able to speak out in their capacities as union representatives, given federal labor-law protections for union speech about employee working conditions. But hundreds more remain silenced,” the complaint continued.“Part of the job of an immigration judge is to educate the public about the immigration courts and the role they play in society,” Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President of the NAIJ, said in a statement. “This policy prevents us from doing this critical work, undermining public understanding of and trust in the immigration courts in the process.”The NAIJ and Knight Institute asked the court to find that the rule violates the First Amendment; they seek to enjoin the DOJ from continuing to enforce the policy.See below for the full complaint:by on Scribd[image via Ed Zurga/Getty Images]Have a tip we should know?Jerry Lambe - JournalistPlease enable JavaScript to view the

Sharecopy linkThe National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a policy that prohibits immigration judges from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration law or policies.The lawsuit, filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claims that the restrictions impose an unconstitutional system of prior restraint on the judges’ protected speech.A similar but less restrictive rule was first instituted in 2017 by the Executive Office for...

public

LambeJerry

jlambe

Law, Crime, LIVE Trials and Smart Legal Analysis.

lawandcrime.com

Credible

Speculation

Anecdotal Evidence

Generalization

Stacking the Deck

Appeal to Authority

Straw Man

Slippery Slope

Emotional Appeal

Red Herring

False Dilemma

Illogical

Moral Equivalency

Ad Hominem

Correlation w/o Causation

Semantics

Begging the Question

Faulty Analogy

Non Sequitur

Bandwagon

Dogmatism

Failing Occam's Razor

Biased

Pure Opinion

Hit Piece

Racial Bias

National Bias

Religious Bias

Financial Incentive

Political Agenda

Gender Bias

Misused Image/Video

Study Misinterpreted

Mistake

Misused Term

Science Misrepresented

Factual Error

Satire

Surface Level

Lack of Reliable Sources

Sensational

Not Credible

Investigative

Balanced

Well Sourced

Great Context

sports

entertainment

U.S.

international

business

technology

science

culture

politics

media

health

Immigration Judges Group Sues DOJ Over Speech Restriction | Law & Crime

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS