March 22, 2022

Courts, Not Kings & Queens

Exceeding judicial authority to impose liberal preferences

Judge Jackson’s record shows regular misuse of judicial authority to impose liberal preferences instead of what the law demands. 
 
In a rare move for the courts, Judge Jackson tried to dictate the specifics of training materials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

  • DHS training materials directed officers to seek evidence and require asylum seekers to present some “facts” showing a credible fear of persecution 
  • Typically, these training materials and non-final agency actions are decided exclusively at the federal agency’s discretion 
  • But Judge Jackson found that she had the power to dictate their content, deciding this training material was “entirely unreasonable” and placed an impermissible burden on asylum seekers  
  • She even decided that illegal immigrants had standing to sue based on these training materials 

  • Judge Jackson weighed into an impending impeachment battle between the executive branch and legislative branch, even though courts typically stay out of political disputes 

  • Judge Jackson signaled she would be willing to compel executive branch officials to comply with congressional subpoenas 
  • She ordered former White House Counsel McGhan to testify before Congress 
  • This demonstrates an expansive view of judicial power, claiming that a politically charged subpoena fight between the Executive Branch and Congress is no different than “ordinary citizens bring[ing] subpoena-enforcement claims in federal courts” 

  • Disregarding the text and plain meaning of the law, Judge Jackson issued an unusual nationwide injunction to prevent the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants 

  • Congress granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the “sole and unreviewable” discretion to determine whether illegal immigrants should be subject to expedited removal (See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)) 
  • Judge Jackson decided that she had the authority to strike down the policy – without citing any statutory text or precedent 
  • A unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Jackson  
  • And in a forceful rebuke of Judge Jackson’s opinion, an Obama appointee said “[t]here could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the Secretary’s independent judgment” 
  •  
    Ignoring extensive historical practice, Judge Jackson halted three executive orders signed by President Trump regarding federal labor-management relations 

  • Judge Jackson acknowledged presidents have “substantial authority” under the Constitution to regulate relations between federal agencies and their employees  
  • Still, Judge Jackson ignored recent Supreme Court decisions to hold that she had the authority to dictate these labor rules  
  • The D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Jackson, criticizing her for ignoring binding precedent and exceeding her authority as a judge