Citing lessons learned from Ferguson, Mo., the treasurer of San Francisco is warning that the city may be practicing “predatory government,” a reference to “predatory lending” that targets lower income families. Jose Cisneros notes that a Justice Department investigation revealed “… a pattern of of ticketing people for minor offenses – like having a busted taillight or high grass in their yard. If people couldn’t pay the ticket, which averaged a few hundred dollars, then their fines grew.”
A new Southern California Public Radio report documents an “uptick” in those families seeking refuge in the United States from Central American nations, and the ongoing Immigration Courts crisis that goes along with it. The SCPR report begins with an example: “Michell Hernández’s case entered the immigration court in August as the system faced an unprecedented backlog, surpassing half a million ongoing cases nationwide. According to government data from Syracuse University’s TRAC, immigration courts fielded 516,031 cases, as of September 2016. Those numbers include both adult and juvenile cases.
Let’s just say, for some odd reason, you suddenly wanted to ponder state court election laws. Especially in certain politically indecisive states that might choose the leader of the free world. Well, the National Center for State Courts has you covered with a well-curated list of resources. The site notes that: “… after the close presidential election of 2000, many Americans have become increasingly aware of the courts’ role in the election process, whether it is due to disputes over civil rights, campaign finance laws and regulations, or ballot access issues. While the federal government plays a predominant role in the election process, this module is meant to provide information on the legal and governmental context of courts’ roles in elections.”
Some of the info is more general, and there’s lots to consider about politics, money and judicial trends. Other parts, if you scroll a bit, are more nuts-and-bolts.
Find the information here: Election Law Resource Guide
A Miami Herald report is adding fuel to the argument that would-be immigrants with legal representation fare much better than those without. The newspaper focuses on an individual case that “… seems to prove the theory among immigration lawyers that foreign nationals represented by an attorney in immigration court proceedings have a better chance of winning their case than those left to their own devices. But the first formal study on legal representation of foreign nationals in immigration proceedings actually proves the validity of that theory.”
“By reviewing over 1.2 million deportation cases decided across the United States over a six-year period, this report provides an urgent portrait of the lack of counsel in immigration courts,” according to the study issued by the American Immigration Council. “In it, we reveal that 63 percent of all immigrants went to court without an attorney. Detained immigrants were even less likely to obtain counsel — 86 percent attended their court hearings without an attorney. For immigrants held in remote detention centers, access to counsel was even more severely impaired, only 10 percent of immigrants detained in small cities obtained counsel.”
You can read the Herald story here: For immigrants crossing the border, they need one thing to help win the case
Over the last five years, the budget for immigration courts grew by 74% — but the budget for immigration enforcement agencies grew by over 400%. The result is gridlock that makes those old criminal court dockets look like models of efficiency.
“Morgenthau outlines the oft-cited, but still hard to believe, stats: “According to the most recent data from a think tank at Syracuse University, there are currently pending before our immigration courts over half a million removal cases. That averages about 2,000 cases per judge.”
Robert Morgenthau: America’s real immigration crisis
Welcome to the age of the “libel bully.” The American Bar Association used the phrase to describe Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a report on his litigation, but knew better than to publish that report. The New York Times writes that “… the [ABA] report concluded that Mr. Trump was a “libel bully” who had filed many meritless suits attacking his opponents and had never won in court. But the bar association refused to publish the report, citing “the risk of the A.B.A. being sued by Mr. Trump.
The story notes that “.. internal communications, the bar association’s leadership, including its general counsel’s office and public relations staff, did not appear to dispute the report’s conclusions.
But James Dimos, the association’s deputy executive director, objected to the term ‘libel bully’ and other sharp language in the report, saying in an Oct. 19 email that the changes were needed to address ‘the legitimately held views of A.B.A. staff who are charged with managing the reputational and financial risk to the association.'”
Another quote from A.B.A. staff push-back: “While we do not believe that such a lawsuit has merit, it is certainly reasonable to attempt to reduce such a likelihood by removing inflammatory language that is unnecessary to further the article’s thesis,” Mr. Dimos wrote. “Honestly, it is the same advice members of the forum would provide to their own clients.”
Catch up on your irony here.
Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post is reporting on the California charter school legal issues, including why the Golden State has so much civil litigation. Strauss notes that “… California, called the charter Wild West, deserves special attention… the state has more charter schools and charter school students than any other state in the nation. One billionaire even came up with a secret plan to “charterize” half of the Los Angeles Unified School District…”