The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is fighting to force the government to release the names of immigration judges accused of misconduct.

Privacy vs. Public Interest

During a hearing on Feb. 16, attorneys representing the AILA delivered arguments before a federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit on why the Justice Department must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to reveal the names of immigration judges subject to official complaints.

AILA's attorney, Julie A. Murray of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, told a three-judge panel the DOJ should release all records related to the discipline process for immigration judges without redacting their names, reports Law360. According to her, it is in the public interest the judges' names be known publicly.

On the other hand, Justice Department lawyer Javier Guzman argued the judges are low-level employees, and any public interest in exposing complaints against the officials is outweighed by each judge's privacy and stigma concerns. Guzman added that a federal employee's privacy should be protected unless the official is in a senior management role or a political appointee.

However, a lawyer for the immigration lawyers' group countered that argument, noting that immigration judges are granted independent authority by law.

"Immigration judges are making life or death decisions and they're required by law to use their independent judgment," said Murray, reports Politico. "In many cases, the buck stops with them."

At another point during the hearing, Guzman defended the categorical withholding of immigration judges' names from the released records. However, Murry warned "the position of the government here is going to lead to abuse" and undermines the importance and power of the role of immigration judges.

Murray went on to stress the importance of the public being able to obtain the names of judges who have been repeatedly accused of misconduct without being disciplined.

"The public has an interest in going to the courtroom of a judge who's been subject to 20 complaints" but not punished," she said. "That can't be done here."

Impact on Immigrants

In an email sent to Latin Post, Murray explained how these judges affect the lives of immigrants, particularly refugees, children and immigrants without attorneys, who are thrown into the immigration court system.

"In recent years, federal judges and advocates have repeatedly noted that certain immigration judges are abusive and hostile toward immigrants appearing in immigration court. These judges also engage in improper stereotyping and biased decisionmaking [sic]," wrote Murray.

"Just seven judges accounted for one-quarter of the 767 complaints at issue in our case, indicating that the government has not been effective at policing immigration judges and their misbehavior on the bench. The public has a right to know who these judges are," she added.

Federal Appeals Court Decision

Two of the three judges on the panel, Patricia Millett and Sri Srinivasan -- both appointed by President Barack Obama -- appeared to sympathize with the arguments presented by the immigration lawyers group. It was not clear, however, what position the third judge, Karen Henderson, would take. Henderson was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Related