Supervision Mandated for Immigration Judges’ Public Engagements – Sky Bulletin

In recent developments from SAN DIEGO, the union representing immigration judges, known for its criticism of the immigration court’s backlogs, has been directed to seek authorization before making any public statements. This federal mandate is seen as a potential move to mute a body that often voices its dissent, particularly in a year marked by elections.

With over half a century of history, the National Association of Immigration Judges is accustomed to freely engaging in public discourses, interviews with journalists, and interactions with legislative staff members, through which it frequently raises concerns about the administration of court systems. It staunchly advocates for increased autonomy and the provision of legal counsel at no cost. Recently, the National Press Club included the union’s leadership in a press event to discuss the impact of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.

Issued on February 15, the directive insists on obtaining the Justice Department’s authorization for judges to participate in any form of writing or public speaking engagements. Citing a 2020 ruling by the Federal Labor Relations Authority which abolished the union’s right to collective bargaining, Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty stated that previous privileges are currently deemed invalid.

The directive extends to exchanges with Congress, news outlets, and professional gatherings, requiring prior consent, a measure that Matt Biggs, the head of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, claims is at odds with President Joe Biden’s pro-union stance. Biggs has expressed his readiness to challenge the decision.

“It’s outrageous, it’s un-American,” Biggs boldly asserts. “Why are they trying to silence these judges?”

As of now, the Justice Department and its subdivision, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, have not commented on McNulty’s order, which was specifically aimed at union figures Mimi Tsankov and Samuel B. Cole. Tsankov, who heads the union, abstained from commenting, constrained by recent policy changes, and Cole, echoed her stance by noting the prohibition on unapproved dialogue.

Journalistic entities, including The Associated Press, have historically consulted the judges’ union on matters concerning court operations. Despite belonging to the Justice Department, unlike other courts, immigration courts maintain confidentiality over case files and hearings that can be sealed to protect privacy.

An ever-increasing backlog, totaling over three million cases, has caused judicial decisions to stretch between five and seven years. This delay inadvertently becomes an incentive for individuals with tenuous asylum claims who can receive work permits during the wait. However, the Trump administration revoked the union’s bargaining rights, established in 1979, which it had been battling over, including disputes over quotas for case completions.

Efforts are being made to recover these rights, according to Biggs, who assures continued advocacy on the union’s behalf. “We have not missed a beat representing them and that will continue,” he proclaimed.

In her command, McNulty, a long-standing government employee who took on the role of chief judge the previous year, hinted the move was prompted by the judges’ escalating public profiles, although detailed motivations were not provided.

Last year, Tsankov voiced her concerns in a Senate hearing and had frequent interactions with the press. She and Cole were scheduled for a panel at the National Press Club in October, but the meeting was postponed.

Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Republican chair Rep. Jim Jordan of the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the Justice Department’s actions, framing it as censorship due to the administration’s unwillingness to showcase failures in managing the U.S. immigration court system.

___=

Contribution to this report was made by Associated Press writer Farnoush Amiri in Washington.