Source: https://ielrblog.com/index.php/2018/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:03:39+00:00

Document:
On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez. In a 5-3 ruling, with Justice Elena Kegan recused and Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings.
The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Rodriguez, is a lawful permanent resident residing in the U.S. since he was an infant. DHS initiated removal proceedings based on prior convictions of possession of a controlled substance and “joy riding.” DHS detained Rodriguez for over three years while the removal proceedings were ongoing, and Rodriguez filed a habeas petition along with a class of immigrants arguing that the relevant statutes do not authorize “prolonged” detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing.
The district court issued a permanent injunction requiring individualized hearings before an immigration judge. The Ninth Court affirmed the ruling, and also interpreted the statute to mean that the Government must provide periodic bond hearings to the detained at six-month intervals. Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
In the majority opinion, Alito rejects the “six-month reasonableness limitation” on the detention of LPRs that the respondents argue is implied in Section 1225(b). He acknowledges that the Zadvydas Court arrived at the six months rule by applying the constitutional-avoidance canon, albeit by a “notably generous” application. However, he argues that the Ninth Circuit took the canon “much further” than the Zadvydas Court intended. To support this claim, Alito offers that the relevant statute in Zadvydas – §1231(a)(6) – “differs materially from those at issue here.” By examining a set of “textual signals,” Alito concludes that §1231(a)(6) was ambiguous as to a temporal time limit, while §1225(b)1 and (b)2 “mandate decision until a certain point and authorize” prior release only under “limited circumstances.” Thus, there is no blanket six-month rule implied in either of the latter two statutes.
Furthermore, the Eight Amendment forbids “[e]xcessive bail.” In Salerno, Breyer argues, the Court held that both the Due Process Clause and the Exercise Bail Clause apply in “cases challenging bail procedures,” such as Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined Breyer’s dissent. In a rare move, Breyer read from his defense.
Immigrants’ rights advocates worry that the ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez will have outsize implications on detained immigrants’ rights against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s aggressive rhetoric on and enforcement of immigration policy within U.S. borders. According to NBC News, ICE deportation arrests have soared by 40 percent since the current administration took office, while border arrests have fallen to a 45-year low. The discrepancy between deportation and border arrests reflects the Trump administration’s focus on internal security, rather than border control.
On February 22, the investigative team led by special counsel Robert Mueller unsealed a series of new indictments against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as his protégé Rick Gates. The documents, bringing the total number of charges up to 32, mainly concern crimes such as bank or tax fraud, as well as suspicious connections to the Ukrainian government. In the document, Mr. Mueller reveals that both Manafort and Gates “acted as unregistered agents of a foreign government and foreign political parties”, specifically pro-Russian Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych. Manafort and Gates reportedly earned tens of millions of dollars as a result of their political work in Ukraine, which they then hid from U.S. authorities by failing “to pay taxes on this income by disguising it as alleged ‘loans’ from nominee offshore corporate entities”.
Once President Yanukovych was removed from power and fled to Russia, Manafort and Gates turned to U.S. real estate as a means of adding to their already exorbitant wealth. As the court document details, the two men used Manafort’s multiple properties across the Eastern seaboard as collateral in order to acquire loans from various financial institutions. Furthermore, on several occasions Paul Manafort lied to U.S. officials about his ownership of foreign companies and bank accounts in a multitude of countries, such as the Seychelles and Cyprus. The document goes on to include a comprehensive list of both domestic and foreign entities that Manafort and Gates controlled as part of their schemes, as well as details on financial transactions and income they repeatedly failed to disclose to U.S. authorities.
Manafort has so far resisted the investigation, even attempting to sue Robert Mueller for charging him with crimes unrelated to the Russia investigation. According to the New York Times, he “asked a federal judge to reject Mr. Mueller’s appointment as overly broad and to dismiss the indictment against him”. Rick Gates, on the other hand, pled guilty to fraud and lying to the investigators on the afternoon of February 23rd, in a clear sign that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation in exchange for a plea deal. Mr. Gates follows in the footsteps of two more former Trump campaign officials who have buckled under pressure from Mueller’s investigation, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Although Mr. Manafort continues to plead innocence, his protégé could reveal further first-hand details about the crimes charged against them. This would, as the Times reports, constitute “a potential blow to [Manafort’s] defense strategy”. Either way, Robert Mueller doesn’t appear to be slowing down.
On Friday, February 16, 2018, The DOJ Special Counsel’s Office released a 37-page indictment charging the Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, as well as thirteen Russian nationals who carried out the organization’s mission in the U.S, with crimes related to meddling in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.
The indictment alleges that the organization began its operations targeting the U.S. as early as 2014. Posing as U.S. activists, the defendants operated social media accounts that commented on polarizing U.S. political and social issues, and attempted to cultivate a U.S. audience. The defendants controlled pages on a range of divisive issues on both sides of the political spectrum, such as Black Lives Matter, border security, and religion. The indictment also alleges that some of the defendants traveled to the U.S. under false pretenses to collect intelligence.
Of the 13 defendants, all are charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., three are charged with conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, and five are charged with aggravated identity theft.
You can access the full indictment here.
On January 26, Manhattan judge Katherine Forrest ordered the release of immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir. Ragbir, the executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, was arrested on January 11 and set to be deported soon thereafter.
Ravi Ragbir became a lawful U.S. resident in 1994. In 2000, however, Ragbir was convicted of fraud while working as a mortgage lender and served a short prison sentence. He was set to be deported but was released in 2008 under supervision. After that, Ragbir has become a figure of authority in the immigration rights movement. On January 11 when Ragbir went in for a regular check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he was told he was going to be detained and soon deported. After fainting, Ragbir was taken to a local hospital and then sent to a federal deportation center in Miami.
Immediately after the arrest, Ragbir’s legal team from NYU Law School’s Immigration Rights Clinic filed a habeas corpus petition and claimed that his constitutional, statutory, and regulatory rights were being violated. Katherine Forrest, a Manhattan District Judge, ruled on Ragbir’s case and called for his immediate release. Forrest spoke about the “freedom to say goodbye” that all citizens are entitled to and argued that Ragbir was not awarded this right. The implications of Ragbir’s case are not unique, however.
In October 2017, Keston Lett was arrested at John F. Kennedy airport for importing drugs into the country. After a $30,000 bond, Lett was released from the custody of the Brooklyn court to his aunt’s house in New Jersey. While in transit, Lett was detained under ICE orders, who were acting under the pretense of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), which allows for the Executive Branch to detain aliens. Lett was then sent to an immigration detention center in Kearny, N.J.
Mr. Lett’s case was brought to Judge Dora Irizarry, who ruled that the ICE’s detention of the defendant violated the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (BRA). Judge Irizarry referenced two other cases that highlighted similar tensions between the BRA and INA.
In light of these recent cases, a striking discord between the Trump Administration’s stricter immigration policy and the judicial branch is evident. ICE detainment has begun to overstep its legal boundaries and create a rift between district judges and immigration enforcement officers.
The court decision may be accessed here.
On January 31, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council announced a plan to outlaw all ivory sales over the next three years. Hong Kong, which was home to the world’s largest legal ivory market for the past 150 years, will slowly increase restrictions until all traders must dispose of their ivory stocks in 2021.
In 1977, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed African elephants in Appendix II. This meant that countries that exported ivory would have to prove that its trade did not contribute to falling elephant populations. After years of hunting began to take a significant toll on the species’ survival, CITES upgraded the African elephant to Appendix I in 1989, which banned international trade of elephant ivory. Although Hong Kong signed the treaty, they allowed domestic trade of ivory that had been imported before 1990, when CITES was established. This exception was problematic, however, because traders soon exploited this loophole in order to sell newer ivory. Between 2000 and 2013, around 33 tons of new ivory were found in shipments. Most recently, 7.2 tons of elephant tusks were seized in a shipment from Malaysia in July 2017. Such incidents have prompted speculation regarding the severity of ivory smuggling in Hong Kong.
Numerous arguments both for and against the ban have risen. Conservationists around the world consider the ban a significant step in the right direction. Hong Kong’s proximity to mainland China makes it easy for Chinese buyers to circumvent their own ban by going to Hong Kong. This ban will make it much more difficult for those buyers to obtain ivory, thus strengthening the Chinese ban and potentially pressuring countries like Japan and the United Kingdom to halt their ivory trades as well. The closing of the remaining legal market in Hong Kong will also make it nearly impossible for sellers to smuggle in newer ivory into the country, reducing the need to poach elephants. Some argue, however, that the lax three-year timeline will cause short term surges in ivory sales and imports, or that buyers will simply turn to the existing legal markets in Japan, the UK, and the EU.
Regardless of the long-term efficacy of Hong Kong’s ban, its passage gives CITES a significant amount of legitimacy and clout. Ivory carvings have been an integral part of Chinese culture and history for thousands of years. They were used to depict deities and were considered a “national intangible cultural heritage.” Prioritizing international law over deeply embedded cultural ties may be a sign of the power of international treaties in changing international norms.
On Friday, February 2, 2018, House Republicans, with the approval of the Trump administration, released the four-page Nunes memo. The controversial memo, written by Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, alleges Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses by the DOJ and the FBI during the 2016 election.
The memo focuses almost entirely on the government’s electronic surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. According to the memo, on October 21, 2016, the DOJ and FBI received a probable cause order under FISA to conduct surveillance on Page. The agencies also received three FISA renewals from the FISC – under 50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1), a FISA order targeting a U.S. citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days, with each renewal requiring an independent finding of probable cause.
The lack of evidence of cooperation between Page and fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos.
The authors of the GOP memo would like the country to believe that the investigation began with Christopher Steele and the dossier, and if they can just discredit Mr. Steele, they can make the whole investigation go away regardless of the Russians’ interference in our election or the role of the Trump campaign in that interference. This ignores the inconvenient fact that the investigation did not begin with, or arise from Christopher Steele or the dossier, and that the investigation would persist on the basis of wholly independent evidence had Christopher Steele never entered the picture.
In response to the release of the Nunes memo, Schiff on behalf of the Democrats had written a 10-pagerebuttal memo. On Monday, when the House Intelligence Committee voted to release the Nunes memo, it also rejected a motion from Schiff to release the Democratic response at the same time. Schiff has told the media that the Democrats will attempt to force another vote on the release of the response.
For the full text of the Nunes memo, see here.
The Coalition for Integrity, an anti-corruption and good government non-profit, non-partisan organization, announces an essay contest for students on: “Attacking Corruption and Promoting Integrity in the United States and around the Globe.” Eligibility is open to any student attending a college or university in the United States or any U.S. citizen or permanent resident attending a college or university outside the United States. Contestants may be undergraduate students, graduate students, or students in a professional school. They can have any disciplinary or professional school background relevant to understanding and ameliorating the problem of corruption.
Essays should be written in English and be no more than 10,000 words, although shorter essays are welcome. Writers should include a note from their college or university registrar attesting either to their current student status or to their graduation in 2018. Submissions must be made to administration@coalitionforintegrity.org by midnight on July 31, 2018.
More information about the contest may be found at the following link: 2018-Student-Essay-Contest.

References: v. 
 §1231
 §1231
 §1225
 v. 
 v. 
 §1805