National Courts Monitor

Feds Demanding Interpreters In Civil Cases

Updated: November 5, 2014

In a situation sure to echo nationally, California is scrambling to “voluntarily” remedy a civil rights violation for not providing interpreters in certain civil cases, The Los Angeles Times reports. The Times notes that “… unlike those charged with a crime, people in civil court do not have the constitutional right to an interpreter. For many of California’s nearly 7 million limited-English proficient speakers — about one-third of whom live in Los Angeles County — that makes the system practically impenetrable… the problem led the U.S. Department of Justice last year to conclude that L.A. County and the state’s Judicial Council were violating the Civil Rights Act.

The Times explained that the investigation “was prompted by a complaint filed by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles on behalf of two low-income clients. One had been sexually assaulted and sought a restraining order against her attacker; the other had filed for custody and child support for her son. Both were denied Korean interpreters. Federal authorities have given California the chance to voluntarily improve services. But failure to make the court system accessible to all could result in federal intervention.”

The Times story comes in a context of diminished civil court services and delays in family court, among other challenges. Top court officials have said mere access to courts become a civil rights issue.

Read the Times story here: After federal probe, state examines need for civil court interpreters

Election May Be Peak Of Obama’s Court-Appointment Power

by NCM Staff

Updated: November 4, 2014

Leave a Comment

The Los Angeles Times is noting that a Republican takeover of the United States Senate would likely mean that President Obama’s ability to control federal judicial appointments has peaked. The Times also notes that “… legal experts say it’s a record of unprecedented achievements in judicial diversity. Women make up 42% of his confirmed nominees, more than double the average of his five predecessors combined, while African Americans make up 18% and Latinos 6%. Eleven openly gay judges now serve…”

Photo from the LA Times report, “Obama’s best chance to influence the judiciary may be passing,” 11/2/14

There are still vacant seats, but you may recall the dust-up last November when Senate Democrats nixed the longtime filibuster rule for most judicial nominations, which allowed the president to select more liberal judges who would have had no chance under the old rules.

Less well known, after the filibuster change, is that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy has continued what the Times calls a “… strict interpretation of arcane committee traditions, which effectively granted veto power over nominations to home-state senators.” That means the “… logjam was broken only in the 19 states with two Democratic senators. Often Obama has declined to nominate judges in states with Republican senators, leaving seven crucial appeals court seats, including the one on the 7th Circuit in Chicago, without a nominee.”

If you wonder what the election means for the nation’s courts, start with this LA Times report.

Magazine Notes High-Stakes Court Cases

by NCM Staff

Updated: October 28, 2014

Leave a Comment

Mother Jones magazine is offering a rundown on five states where electing state supreme court justices has become a high-stakes political battle, complete with spending millions of dollars on attack and counter-attack ads. The piece offers some familiar names for anyone who follows the judicial policy wars, like Texas and North Carolina, and some places where you might not have noticed conflict, like Tennessee.

In particular, the magazine notes that Florida, also home to significant fights over the governor’s office and of course a vital presidential swing state, has seen dramatic increases. Florida, says reporter A.J. Vicens, “… ranked near the bottom of the list between 2000-09 in terms of judicial candidate contributions, with nominees raising just $7,500 during that entire period. But that changed in the 2011-12 cycle, when three Supreme Court judges were up for retention votes, with candidate fundraising coming in at more than $1.5 million and independent spending topping $3.1 million.”

For court watchers, it may be interesting that the increased spending is happening in some states with “retention” models, which are believed to decrease political efforts in the judiciary. In those states, voters can only decide whether or not to keep or dismiss a judge – as opposed to choosing between candidates. California, for example, uses a retention system for its high court, although a huge majority of lower court judges run unopposed.

Read the Mother Jones take here: These states are witnessing big-money slugfests—to elect judges

ICE Holds Down Under ‘Trust Act’ Policy

by NCM Staff

Updated: October 23, 2014

Leave a Comment

Some new numbers are confirming that law enforcement officials are holding fewer immigrants on behalf of federal immigration authorities. The change comes under policies of the Trust Act that went into place earlier this year and follow court decisions on the “holds.” The Associated Press reports that “… immigration officials say local authorities across the U.S. released thousands of immigrants from jails this year despite efforts to take them into federal custody, including more than 3,000 with previous felony charges or convictions.”

The AP story explains that “… the Trust Act limits the ability of local law enforcement to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to hold immigrants longer than their scheduled release date to give ICE time to take them into custody.” Immigration issues are nearly always “civil,” not criminal issues.

California’s San Diego County was among the five counties nationwide with the most federal immigration requests declined, according to newly released ICE data. Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Alameda and Miami-Dade, FL, were the other four. In northern California, the number of detainees transferred to ICE custody fell 53 percent during fiscal year 2014, according to ICE. In the Los Angeles area, the number fell by 15 percent. Similar figures weren’t available for San Diego, but in fiscal year 2013, immigration authorities requested that 3,020 detainees be transferred to ICE custody from San Diego and Imperial counties, reports the AP.

See the story via California public radio here: Immigration Holds Plummet In First Year Of California’s Trust Act

SEC ‘Steering’ Cases To Judges It Appoints

by NCM Staff

Updated: October 21, 2014

Leave a Comment

It turns out the Immigration Courts are not the only justice system where prosecutors get to argue in front of judges hired by their side of the justice equation. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is “… increasingly steering cases to hearing in front of the agency’s appointed administrative judges. Perhaps not surprisingly, the trend has resulted in a “winning streak” for the federal agency.

The WSJ says that “… thanks in part to enhanced powers granted in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill, the SEC lately has been using the administrative judges for complicated cases, including several involving insider trading.” The insider trading cases were usually taken to federal court, but resulted in some high-profile losses. As with the immigration courts, the civil cases can be handled in ways that criminal cases cannot.

“It’s fair to say it’s the new normal,” says one SEC official in the Journal’s report. Not surprisingly, some critics are arguing that actual courts, not admin courts, should handle such lawsuits.