Biden Administration Accused of Silencing Immigration Judges

infoPhoto byJon TysononUnsplash

In a recent development, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has leveled accusations against the Biden administration, alleging an attempt to stifle the voices of immigration judges. The controversy stems from a decree issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in February, which marks a significant departure from established norms.

The decree mandates that immigration judges, who have historically been vocal about shortcomings within the immigration court system, must now seek supervisor approval before engaging in any public remarks or press interviews. This directive, as per Grassley, constitutes a "blatant attempt" to discourage federal workers from exercising their legally protected right to free speech.

Sheila McNulty, the newly appointed chief immigration judge, conveyed this directive via email to the National Association of Immigration Judges, acknowledging the contentious nature of the issue within the judges' union. The policy reversal, according to Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, goes against over five decades of precedent, wherein immigration judges enjoyed the liberty to speak publicly at various forums, including before Congress and in press interviews.

The timing of this decree has raised eyebrows, especially amidst heightened scrutiny of the Biden administration's handling of the influx of migrants at the southern border. Grassley, in a letter addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland, expressed concerns that the move might be aimed at suppressing dissent from government officials regarding the immigration court system's backlog and overall policies.

Judge Mimi Tsankov, president of the judges' union and a vocal critic of the system's deficiencies, has been directly affected by McNulty's email decree. Tsankov, who previously highlighted issues such as resource shortages and undue pressure to expedite case resolutions, has been restricted from speaking further due to the DOJ's directive. This silencing of dissenting voices within the immigration judiciary has raised questions about due process and transparency within the system.

The Biden administration's stance on immigration has been a subject of debate, with President Biden advocating for bipartisan immigration reform in his recent State of the Union address. However, Grassley's critique and the DOJ's controversial decree underscore ongoing tensions regarding the administration's approach to immigration policy and judicial independence.

It's important to note that this development comes in the wake of previous actions by the Federal Labor Relations Board during the Trump administration, which revoked the judges' union's collective bargaining rights. The successive attempts to curtail the influence of immigration judges within the system reflect broader challenges in achieving consensus on immigration reform and addressing systemic issues within the immigration court system.

As the debate continues, the implications of silencing immigration judges on transparency, accountability, and the fair administration of justice remain pressing concerns. The balance between judicial independence and executive oversight in matters of immigration policy will likely continue to be a point of contention, with ramifications for both immigration law and broader democratic principles.