1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 20 immigration judges fired, despite backlogs;…

Immigration Law

20 immigration judges fired, despite backlogs; one labels dismissal ‘political pink slip’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 18, 2025, 1:56 pm CST

Immigration judges have not been spared from firings in the Trump administration, despite a backlog of 3.7 million cases in their courts at the end of last year.

Twenty immigration judges have been fired, including 18 let go Friday, a union official told the New York Times, Bloomberg Law and the Associated Press, which was first to report the news.

The firings are “inexplicable,” and “it makes no sense at all,” said Matthew Biggs, the official, in an interview with the New York Times. Biggs is the president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers.

Biggs said the firings are contrary to President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration. Immigration judges, who are administrative law judges, preside over asylum claims and deportation cases.

Among those who were fired Friday, 13 were recently hired and had not yet been sworn in. Five were assistant chief immigration judges. Another two were fired in the past week.

One of the fired judges was Judge Kerry E. Doyle, who was formerly the deputy general counsel for immigration for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“Unfortunately, I was unable to avoid the political pink slip,” Doyle wrote on LinkedIn.

The fired judges included former prosecutors and military veterans, Doyle told Bloomberg Law.

See also:

DOJ says it will prosecute local officials over immigration enforcement

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof who used F-word while criticizing…

Law Professors

Law prof who used F-word while criticizing political leaders can’t be reinstated immediately, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 9:14 am CST

Updated: A state appeals court stepped in after a judge in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, issued a temporary restraining order that required Louisiana State University to reinstate a law professor to teaching following his suspension for “inappropriate statements” in the classroom.

Judge Donald R. Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in Louisiana ordered professor Ken M. Levy’s temporary reinstatement Jan. 30 and set a Feb. 10 hearing to consider the professor’s request for an injunction. The TRO said the university can’t take action against Levy, for now, on account of free speech and due process protections under the state and federal constitutions.

Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal vacated part of the TRO in a Feb. 4 order, report the Advocate and WAFB via Above the Law. The appeals court said Johnson should not have ordered Levy back into the classroom without a full evidentiary hearing. Still intact is another part of the TRO barring Louisiana State University from interfering with Levy’s employment based on expression that is constitutionally protected.

The Louisiana Luminator, NOLA.com and WAFB (here and here) had coverage of the TRO noted by Above the Law and the Volokh Conspiracy. Law.com has a report on the resignation of Louisiana State University general counsel Winston DeCuir Jr., who was the first Black lawyer to serve in that role for Louisiana State University. DeCuir resigned days after Levy’s suspension.

Levy had used the F-word while criticizing President Donald Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry. The university told Levy that he was suspended “pending an investigation into student complaints of inappropriate statements made in your class,” according to a Jan. 17 letter cited by NOLA.com.

In a court filing, the university said it was investigating “inappropriate, vulgar and potentially harassing conduct in the classroom,” WAFB reported. The university said it removed Levy after hearing a recording of a classroom lecture.

WAFB obtained a tape of Levy’s statements, made during an introductory lecture to his criminal law class. He spoke after asking students not to record his lectures because he didn’t want to get in trouble with the governor as another law professor did for classroom comments. Here are some of his comments:

  • “I frankly, like, forward my s- – – to the governor, like I generally don’t have a problem; I would love to become a national celebrity based on what I said in this class, like f- – – the governor.” Levy said. “But taken out of context, I might seem like a bit of an a- -hole.”

  • “You probably heard I’m a big lefty; OK, I’m a big Democrat, um, I’ve been devastated by, I couldn’t believe that f- – -er won. Um, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a s- – -, you can have, you’re already getting ready to say your evaluations. I don’t need his political commentary; no, you need my political commentary, you above all others need my political commentary.”

A court filing said Levy’s comments about Landry were made in a joking manner, and his comments about Trump were his “rather colorful opinion,” NOLA.com reported.

Johnson denied motions by Louisiana State University for a stay or dissolution of the temporary restraining order, according to WAFB.

The university said in a statement cited by NOLA.com it was committed “to upholding academic freedom while maintaining a respectful and professional learning environment.”

Faculty members should respect the views of others, the statement said. And academic freedom doesn’t give professors the freedom to use the classroom “as a platform for personal grievances,” the university said.

Updated Feb. 5 at 8:40 a.m. to report on the Louisiana appeals court’s decision.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Last-minute election lawsuits may serve political…

Election Law

Last-minute election lawsuits may serve political goals, law prof says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 30, 2024, 9:50 am CDT

Last-minute lawsuits challenging election rules and voter-registration procedures are being filed in battleground states in the run-up to the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Democrats and Republicans are filing suits, the Wall Street Journal reports. Democrats are challenging a new Georgia rule for certifying results, while Republicans are challenging voter-registration procedures in North Carolina and Arizona.

Prior suits have already produced rulings in other states regarding the rules for absentee ballots, regulations for voter registration and the cleanup of voter rolls, according to the article.

The suits are unlikely to result in big changes in how voters cast their ballots, but they can serve political goals, according to Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School in California, who spoke with the Wall Street Journal.

Partisan suits can help with fundraising and motivate voters, Levitt said.

“It fosters discontent with a system that works pretty well,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal has details on these recent suits:

  • The Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party have filed two suits against the North Carolina State Board of Elections. One suit claims that the elections board failed to remove noncitizens from voter rolls, despite their assertion that they weren’t citizens on jury questionnaires. The other contends that the board improperly registered voters without proper identification to verify citizenship. The cases are North Carolina Republican Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections and Republican National Committee v. North Carolina State Board of Elections.

  • The chair of the Arizona Republican Party has sued Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs over executive orders expanding locations for voter-registration locations and ballot drop-offs. The case is Swoboda v. Hobbs.

  • Democratic officials in Georgia have sued the state election board to challenge new rules governing the certification of votes. The new rules require election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before vote certification and to allow county board members to examine election-related documentation. The suit contends that the rule change turns confirmation of vote totals “into a broad license” for board members to hunt for purported election irregularities, potentially delaying certification and displacing court-supervised processes for addressing fraud. The case is Abhiraman v. State Election Board.

Hat tip to How Appealing, which noted the story and provided a link.

See also:

SCOTUS allows Arizona voter-registration law requiring proof of citizenship

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Known Christian conservative’ judge says…

Judiciary

‘Known Christian conservative’ judge says his ouster over sexual assault reversal was ‘total political hit job’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2024, 10:44 am CST

A judge who declared that a sexual assault defendant had “plenty of punishment” before reversing the conviction has been removed from the bench.

Judge Robert K. Adrian, 66, of Adams County, Illinois, was ousted by the Illinois Courts Commission in a Feb. 23 opinion, report the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune and the Muddy River News.

Adrian told the Muddy River News that he reversed the conviction of Drew Clinton because he was not guilty. The commission’s decision was “a total political hit job,” Adrian said.

Adrian told the Chicago Tribune that the commission’s decision was “totally a miscarriage of justice.” He said what he did was right, and he has always told the truth about it. Adrian said there is a “two-tiered justice system for conservative Republicans in Illinois,” and he was targeted because he’s “a known Christian conservative.”

In a January 2022 hearing, Adrian said Clinton had received “plenty of punishment” after spending 148 days in jail and reversed the youth’s conviction. Illinois sentencing law required Clinton to spend four years in prison. Adrian had initially convicted Clinton, who was 18 years old when he was charged, in a bench trial in October 2021.

Clinton’s sexual assault conviction was for placing his finger in the vagina of a 16-year-old victim at a graduation party when she was unable to give knowing consent. Adrian initially acquitted Clinton on two other counts alleging vaginal penetration with his penis.

The victim had testified that she got drunk, fell asleep and awoke with a pillow pushed in her face as Clinton sexually assaulted her.

During the January 2022 hearing, Adrian said he can’t sentence Clinton to time served, which would be a just sentence. But he can reconsider his verdict and find Clinton not guilty, he said. He also criticized parents for having parties for teenagers, allowing them to swim in their underwear, and allowing them to bring liquor to a party.

“The court is totally disgusted with that whole thing,” he said.

Before the hearing, Adrian asked the defense attorney in an ex parte conversation whether he had spoken to the state’s attorney about the possibility of a plea agreement, the commission’s decision said. The defense lawyer replied that the prosecutor was not willing to do that. Adrian also spoke with the state’s attorney alone about any plea deal.

Adrian told the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board that he reversed the sentence because prosecutors had failed to prove that the victim was unable to prove consent. He said his “plenty of punishment” comment meant that the jail term would have been proper if Clinton had been charged with a different offense.

The Illinois Courts Commission said Adrian’s justification for the reversal was a “subterfuge.” Adrian’s conduct, his comments at the sentencing hearing, and his reversal order “are clear and convincing evidence that [Adrian] reversed his guilty finding to thwart and circumvent the law that required him to impose a mandatory prison term upon Clinton,” the commission said.

The commission found that Adrian gave “misleading and deceptive explanations regarding his true reasons for reversing himself,” demonstrating “an utter disregard for the integrity of the judiciary.”

The commission also said Adrian violated ethics rules when he ordered a prosecutor to leave his courtroom for liking a social media post that criticized Adrian’s reversal. The prosecutor has accepted Adrian’s apology and later appeared in front of Adrian.

Several lawyers who testified said Adrian was knowledgeable in the law and had a reputation for being fair and serving with integrity. There were no other complaints or discipline against Adrian during his 13 years on the bench.

The 16-year-old girl who accused Clinton told the Chicago Tribune after Adrian’s ouster that she was “very happy that the commission could see all the wrong and all the lies that he told the entire time. I’m so unbelievably happy right now. He can’t hurt anybody else. He can’t ruin anyone else’s life.”

See also:

“‘Plenty of punishment’ judge faces ethics hearing for reversing rape conviction after questioning sentence”

Advocates are worried about the fate of new auto safety standards tucked inside Congress’ $1 trillion infrastructure bill, including one for vehicle seats. It was prompted by a years-long CBS News investigation that revealed potential seatback dangers linked to a government safety standard that may be outdated.

Congressional correspondent Kris Van Cleave, who has been investigating this story since 2015, reports that buried inside the 2,700-page bill for roads, bridges, airports and waterways are a host of auto safety initiatives, including one inspired by our six-year CBS News investigation. It aims to change what safety advocates say is a dangerously outdated regulation that’s turning crashes deadly. 

Our CBS News investigation (which first aired in October 2015) discovered that it had been known for decades that, when hit from behind, the front seats in all types of passenger vehicles can collapse, launching occupants into the backseat.

Injuries can be catastrophic, something the Fraser family lives with the consequences of every day.

Jayden Faith was a 12-year-old full of motion — a competitive dancer and eight-time state champion gymnast. But on Thanksgiving 2016, everything changed. The family was driving home from serving meals to the homeless when their car was rear-ended.

When asked how life had changed, Jayden’s mother, Michelle Fraser, replied: “In every way.”

“Like, B.C. and A.D.,” Jayden’s father, Jason Fraser, said. “Like, a definitiveness of, we talk about our life before and after, because there’s no comparison.”

“When it happened, it was like a bomb went off,” said Michelle. “Something’s wrong. Very wrong, because she was just slumped and convulsing.” 

“She died on the side of the road,” Jason said. “The paramedics put her in the ambulance, they said there’s no light in her eyes, she was gone.”

But somehow, “Jay-Fay,” as her parents call her, did survive, despite a 360-degree skull fracture and a life-changing traumatic brain injury, leaving her unable to walk or speak.

Van Cleave asked, “What do you miss? Is there something you miss most? Probably hearing her voice?”

“Yeah, that’s my number one,” Jason replied.

“I miss seeing her dance,” Michelle said.

The Frasers are not alone. CBS News identified dozens of families that know their pain all too well.

While regulators acknowledge these types of crashes are under-reported, safety advocates estimate at least 50 people a year (mostly children in the back seat) die from them. But the seats all meet, or exceed, federal safety standards set by a regulation dating back to the 1960s.

Congresswoman Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) learned of the issue from our investigation, and led the effort in the House to fix the problem. “I really do feel that the time is now,” she said, adding: “I think that credit should be given to CBS for you to identify this issue.”

Inside the infrastructure bill is language requiring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to draft a new, updated strength standard for vehicle seats within two years, but it requires the approval of the Secretary of Transportation before it can be implemented.

“This is a fix that’s going to happen,” Rice said. “The car manufacturers know it, and we’re going to get it done.”

But progressive Democrats are now threatening to join House Republicans and vote down the infrastructure bill unless President Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget act passes first. They argue infrastructure alone fails to address the needs of the nation. The political wrangling has this potentially life-saving reform hanging in the balance.

Van Cleave asked Jason Fraser what he had to say to the politicians in Washington.

“The longer that you guys wait, you’re just adding to the list of people just like us, letting children and adults die in these rear-end car accidents. It’s unnecessary,” he replied.

Safety advocates would have preferred language mandating the regulation change without requiring the Secretary of Transportation to weigh in.

The Frasers argue that any movement to action, sooner rather than later, is better than a perfect plan.

Since CBS News’ first story on this issue aired in October 2015, a conservative estimate is that at least 300 people have died in these kinds of crashes. Most are likely children.