Thread: Slamming ‘Judicial Activism,’ Sessions Tells DOJ Lawyers To Fight Nationwide Injuncti

POLITICS

Slamming ‘Judicial Activism,’ Sessions Tells DOJ Lawyers To Fight Nationwide Injunctions

“This trend must stop. We have a government to run.”


By Ryan J. Reilly

09/13/2018 02:12 pm ET Updated 6 days ago

ALLISON SHELLEY / REUTERS

WASHINGTON ― Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants Justice Department attorneys to push back on federal judges who have imposed nationwide injunctions against some of the Trump administration’s most controversial policies.

In a memo to the nation’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices on Thursday, Sessions said judges have been “acting outside the bounds of their authority and granting relief that reaches far beyond the confines of the particular case or controversy before them.”

The Trump administration has faced 25 nationwide injunctions, Sessions said, including cases involving bans on travel, transgender members of the military, and federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities.

The memo instructs litigators to remind courts of constitutional limits on their authority; emphasize that the rise in nationwide injunctions is “an historical anomaly inconsistent with centuries of judicial practices”; and argue that nationwide injunctions could discourage other litigants from suing and may “further undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary because they may be perceived as a sign of disrespect from one court to another.”

“Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country,” Sessions said in a statement.

“This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years,” Sessions said. “This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law, and with these new guidelines, this Department is going to continue to fight them.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b64a336cc5cd

“This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years,” Sessions said. “This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch.

Sessions is absolutely correct on this!

If jeff wants to fight judicial activism then he needs to void the case of plyler v doe 1982 in which the SC ordered the states to provide free k-12 to illegal kids. That was writing a law and the constitution says courts can't do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

OTOH there is a a law written by congress - section 1324 of title 8 - which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live and schools that let illegals attend are clearly in violation. Jeff should say he will prosecute any school official who admits an illegal.

Originally Posted by Text Driving Is Deadly;1618604[SIZE=3

]If jeff wants to fight judicial activism then he needs to void the case of plyler v doe 1982 in which the SC ordered the states to provide free k-12 to illegal kids. That was writing a law and the constitution says courts can't do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."[/SIZE]

OTOH there is a a law written by congress - section 1324 of title 8 - which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live and schools that let illegals attend are clearly in violation. Jeff should say he will prosecute any school official who admits an illegal.

He can't.

People need to be careful about Plyler vs Doe. Plyler vs Doe did NOT order states to provide free education to illegal aliens in K-12. What it said was if your state constitution requires compulsory school attendance for all persons in certain ages to attend school, then you can not charge one student tuition and another not, because of national origin and immigration status.

Plyler vs Doe is not really an example of judicial activism, it's actually a decision based on the 14th Amendment as written based on state constitutions as written.

I've thought about this case a lot during my now 15 years of fighting illegal immigration and my conclusion is that the mistake was not made by the US Supreme Court, the mistake was made by the failure to enforce US immigration law at all levels of our society by all of our "institutions".

In the Plyler vs Doe case, the issue wasn't illegal aliens attending public school, the issue was forcing them to attend public school under the Texas State Constitution and then charging them tuition for it based on their national origin, i. e. immigration status.

The solution to me is changing state constitutions to limit the compulsory education mandate to legal residents of the state and local applicable school district who are either US citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States. This would exclude all non-citizens, except green card holders, from the compulsory education mandate, and make them ineligible therefore from the free education benefit that accompanies that mandate. The children of visa holders for example would be exempt from the mandate and ineligible for the free tuition that accompanies it. The children of H1B visa holders for example would be exempt from the mandate and ineligible for free public education in those states. Obviously it would also exclude all illegal aliens from the compulsory attendance mandate and are thus ineligible for the free education.

What can Jeff and the federal government do? Well, the federal government can stop funding the education of illegal aliens. That is within the authority of the federal government to start withholding all federal payments to states for K-12 education for illegal aliens. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to fund the education or anything else of illegal aliens in the United States in violation of US immigration law.

Jeff CAN do that. I'm sure it will be challenged, and if so, then defend it in court. If you know the law and the Constitution and how to argue the case, then you will win. There is no "constitutional" right to a free education under the US Constitution, that is all state constitutions. No state constitution governs US federal payments, only federal law and the US Constitution govern federal payments. The federal payment is only about $1,000 a student last time I checked, but there's a lot of illegal aliens and a lot of visa holders, so if I were Jeff, I would work on that for awhile and see how it works. I think it will work out pretty well as a matter of law and Constitution. I would also prohibit the use of any federal 501 C 3 funds to fund the "free education" or anything else of anyone who is not a US citizen or legal permanent resident (green card holder) including anyone in our country in violation of US immigration law.

This President ran on the issue of removing all illegal and legal immigrants from being "public charges", using taxpayer benefits, yet I don't see much coming out of the DOJ or elsewhere, except the White House, doing or even trying to do anything about this. Support the White House, support this President, start cleaning up this mess of illegal aliens and excess immigrants sucking on taxpayer benefits.

E-verify...get ALL illegal aliens out of our taxpayer funded schools!

Send the illegal parents AND their minor's back to their country of origin!

Originally Posted by Judy

People need to be careful about Plyler vs Doe. Plyler vs Doe did NOT order states to provide free education to illegal aliens in K-12. What it said was if your state constitution requires compulsory school attendance for all persons in certain ages to attend school, then you can not charge one student tuition and another not, because of national origin and immigration status.

How do you reconcile plyler v doe with section 1324 of title 8 which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here.

It's not really a conflict. The conflict is with states' constitutions mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens. The question then would be, do state constitutions violate federal law by a) mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens and b) paying for their education costs under such a mandate. Under Plyler vs Doe, if you remove them from compulsory education, you can remove them from free education, but you would have to remove them in a non-discriminatory manner that's shown not to have a bias based on national origin. That's why if you limit the mandate to citizens and green card holders, excluding all others including visa holders, that group is broad enough and diverse enough not to show a national origin bias.

At the time of Plyler vs Doe, which involved a very southern next to the border community in Texas, all of the illegal aliens in question were Mexicans from Mexico, so that construed as a potential national origin bias. Our laws also prevent the Catch 22 scenario, which also applied in this case based on the mandate, and was the compelling argument that resulted in Plyler vs Doe, which is you can't mandate an action that results in an unfair penalty by complying with the mandate. In other words, if attending school is required regardless of who you are in Texas, which it was and is, then you can't penalize illegal aliens by complying with your law, especially if they are all from one country, that can be argued as a national origin bias.

Also, under the US Constitution, states have the right to admit immigrants, balanced against the right of the federal government to prohibit such immigration after 1808. A lot of people make the mistake of believing that controlling immigration is solely a "federal responsibility", no it isn't. Any state can limit immigration into their borders under the US Constitution, as well as allow whomever in. States have the inherent constitutional right and authority to do both. The federal government has the right to prohibit the immigration, and the power to remove the illegal aliens and punish those who violate the law, except where they are duplicitous. For example, currently, the federal government is actively underwriting and participating in the education of illegal aliens with their federal education payments of $1,000 or so a student, regardless of immigration status. So how can the federal government start arresting local school officials who are merely a) complying with their own state constitutions and b) being supported financially by the federal government for doing so?

What the federal government can and should do is a) stop sending federal payments to states for illegal alien students and b) start conducting ICE raids at schools to remove illegal alien students, parents/sponsors/families from the country. Same with hospitals and churches.

Once that is all in play, THEN you can start arresting local school officials for admitting illegal aliens into public schools. Otherwise, the courts aren't going to support it, without likewise calling for someone to arrest all the federal government employees involved with sending federal payments to the states to fund the very activity the feds are saying is "illegal" under Section 1324.

Courts despise absurdity of situations, but they hate hypocrisy even more. So the federal education payment issue has to be addressed first, then enforcement of 1324 at all locations including schools. Meanwhile, states who want to solve this problem and protect their own school personnel should get busy fixing their state constitution language regarding compulsory attendance.

It's not really a conflict. The conflict is with states' constitutions mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens

What state constitutions mandate illegals get free k-12?

The question then would be, do state constitutions violate federal law by a) mandating compulsory education attendance by illegal aliens

There is no question about that. Section 1324 of title 8 makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here.

Table 5.1. Compulsory school attendance laws, minimum and maximum age limits for required free education, by state: 2017

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp

Yes, I know, every aspect of our society is in violation of Section 1324. Every employer who hires them, every landlord who rents to them, every store who sells to them, every bank who gives them an account, every finance agency that cashes a check or sends a wire transfer for them, every state who gives them education, driver's licenses, college seats, and birth certificates, every hospital and doctor and dentist who gives them medical care, every agency that gives them a tax refund, food stamps, low income housing, a work permit, every church that gives them a baptism, a church membership, refuge, every charity that gives them coats, toys, food, every Judge who gives them a release, a stay, an appeal, every 911 operator, first-responder and cop who respond to their woes and troubles, etc., etc., etc. violates Section 1324 of Title 8.

Our entire country is in violation of Section 1324 of Title 8.

We can keep fighting the good fight to remove the incentives and hope they self-deport, but I think what we have to do is remove illegal aliens from the country, and the only way to do that is through state and local law enforcement. If there's 30 million or more which most of US believe there is, then 800,000 state and local law enforcement officers can do that very quickly.

State and local law enforcement arrests approximately 12 million people a year for non-traffic violations. The average arrest rate per state and local law enforcement officer in the US is less than 1.5 arrests per month, according to these FBI statistics. Theoretically, if they all arrested 2 illegal aliens a month, that's 1.6 million per month, that's 19.2 million a year, so in less than 2 years all 30 plus million could be arrested and deported. This is what could easily be done if state and local law enforcement wanted to help their states and communities solve this problem for our country.

State and local police officers make the arrests, coordinate with ICE to verify status, hold them for pick-up by a federally authorized National Guard operation to pick 'em up and transport them to a border or port to await a mass deportation hearing on site by DOJ, the Mexicans are sent over the border; the Central Americans are put on armed private mass transportation vehicles to Central America; the Ecuadorans are put on planes; the Filipinos, Koreans and Chinese are put on boats, and the rest are handled in the best least expensive manner possible based on their numbers.

Implement Judy's Plan B to stop the new flows, ramp it up after a few months to phase 2 and apply the sanctions to those already in the country until they're all out and back in their homelands where they belong.

Secure the borders and ports, ensure by law that no President or Agency can give a work permit to any illegal alien ever again, and we can solve this problem.

But we'll never be able to do any of this if we don't elect Republicans in November. This is our only chance ever to solve this problem and it's 100% up to Republicans to do it, because Democrats will never do it, and it's up to the American People to give us the numbers in Congress so we can finish this while we have a President who will do this for US. There won't be another one, this is it, right here, right now, most important mid-term elections in the history of the United States and the American People.