photo #8116965

ANN KENEVAN on March 29, 2025

12 views

In Album: ANN KENEVAN's Timeline Photos

Dimension: 1200 x 800

File Size: 66.14 Kb

View More View Less

ANN KENEVAN

H/T Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree Immigration law in the United States operates under a framework deliberately designed to keep federal district courts at arm’s length. This isn’t an accident—it’s a calculated move by Congress to streamline a complex system and prevent judicial overreach. Th... View MoreH/T Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree Immigration law in the United States operates under a framework deliberately designed to keep federal district courts at arm’s length. This isn’t an accident—it’s a calculated move by Congress to streamline a complex system and prevent judicial overreach. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) lays out a clear path: immigration cases start with administrative proceedings before immigration judges, move to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) if appealed, and then, if necessary, land in the federal circuit courts. District courts? They’re not part of the equation. The reasoning is straightforward. Immigration enforcement and policy fall under the executive branch, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) taking the lead. Congress recognized that letting district courts—trial-level bodies with limited geographic reach—meddle in these cases would create chaos. A single judge in, say, Texas or California could derail national policy with a ruling that conflicts with another district’s decision. To avoid this, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 explicitly stripped district courts of jurisdiction over deportation orders, funneling challenges to the circuit courts instead. The REAL ID Act of 2005 doubled down, slamming the door on habeas corpus petitions in district courts for immigration matters, declaring the courts of appeals the “sole and exclusive” venue for reviewing removal orders. Why does this matter? Immigration isn’t like criminal or tort law, where district courts get involved. It’s administrative, governed by agencies like DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Immigration judges aren’t Article III federal judges—they’re administrative officials under the Attorney General. Their decisions don’t belong in district court dockets. Yet, some activist lawyers try to bypass this setup, filing habeas petitions or lawsuits to snag a favorable ruling from a sympathetic judge. These moves often falter—higher courts routinely slap them down—but they gum up the works nonetheless. Take the numbers: over 2 million cases clog the immigration court backlog as of late 2023, per the Government Accountability Office. District court meddling only slows things down, delaying outcomes for vulnerable people—like asylum seekers—or those without valid claims. Congress built this system for efficiency and uniformity, not judicial free-for-alls. When district judges step in, they’re not just overreaching; they’re defying a structure that’s been law for decades. The truth is, immigration law was never meant to be their playground—and that’s by design. So these activist judges who continuously don’t know their place are insane. 5:03 PM · Mar 28, 2025

View Less

March 29, 2025