It's Not Going to Be Popular to Say This Around Some Circles, But the Supreme Court Did the Right Thing in Striking Down the U.S. District Court's Attempt to Alter Wisconsin's Voting Framework

I don't think it's any secret that I don't like Donald Trump.  He's got an authoritarian streak, he can't stand criticism, and he does try to grab power he doesn't have.  But, I'm not going to join those who have a knee-jerk reaction every time some branch of the U.S. Government takes an action or makes a decision that has the effect of decreasing the opportunities to cast or count votes and claim that it's part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to suppress the vote and keep Trump in power.  There are times when lower courts, in an effort to do what the trial judge subjectively thinks is the morally right, overstep their authority.  When that happens, the Supreme Court is within its authority to remind those lower courts that they need to work within the framework of the law and the Constitution.  Among those constitutional principles that is important to uphold are the separation of powers and federalism.  This is why the Supreme Court's decision on Monday, April 6th,addressing the election in the State of Wisconsin, although poorly written, was the right thing to do.

The Supreme Court's decision did not elaborate on the facts too well.  For that, I had to go back to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dated April 2, 2020.  That decision addresses three consolidated cases, in all of which the plaintiffs challenge Wisconsin's election framework, within the context of the current COVID-19 crisis.

The entire world is the middle of a pandemic, from a virus which heretofore had not been identified, and had not infected humans.  That is SARS-CoV2, which many have been identifying by using the shorthand, the coronavirus.  It is actually just one, and indeed the newest, of many different types of coronaviruses, which, unfortunately, is confusing some people.  The virus causes the disease that the World Health Organization calls COVID-19.  COIVD-19 appears to cause mild symptoms in the vast majority of people.  But in some people, it can cause serious respiratory issues, and death.  There is some dispute over the death rate, but it appears to be between 1% and 3%, which is a much higher death rate than the flu.  In addition, the virus appears to be more contagious than the flu.  Because humans have not developed natural immunity to this virus yet, and because we currently do not have a vaccine against the virus, it has swept across the globe.  With the first case in humans being identified in December of 2019, as of the time of writing, over 1.2 million people have been infected worldwide.  Over 72,000 people have died from COVID-19.

COVID-19 has the potential to overwhelm the medical resources throughout the world.  The recommendation of medical professionals has been to isolate those who have the virus, quarantine those who have come in contact with those who have the virus, and generally practice social distancing and safe personal hygiene for everyone else.  Governors across the United States have issued stay-at-home orders, to prevent people from congregating and giving the virus more opportunities to spread.  Surfaces are being cleaned more often, and people are being advised to wash their hands often, to wear masks in public and to try not to touch their faces.  Most importantly, medical professionals have advised that we avoid large public gatherings.

However, this is an election year in the United States.  In November, Americans will go to the polls to either to choose a new president, or re-elect President Trump.  This spring, we are in the midst of primary season.  That is, the separate states and territories are holding primaries or caucuses to nominate the Democratic candidate for president.  In some states, they are holding elections for local and state offices at the same time as the primaries.  The COVID-19 crisis has caused numerous states who had elections scheduled for April to postpone them, or to expand the opportunity for mail-in absentee ballots, due to the risk of spreading the virus.  Wisconsin is not one of those states.

Wisconsin scheduled its election to be held on April 7, 2020 long before the current crisis. More well over a month, the Governor has been calling on the Wisconsin Legislature to postpone the election, or make it easier for people to cast mail-in absentee ballots.  The Legislature has not responded.  Meanwhile, because so many election workers are over the age of sixty, a category who is at a high risk of developing the severe symptoms of COVID-19, the rise in absentee ballots as well as opening the polls for the regular in-person voting, threatened to overwhelm Wisconsin election officials.  Many voters requested absentee ballots in the last month leading up to Election Day.  It was almost certain that thousands of applicants would not receive their absentee ballots before Election Day.

This is the situation where the U.S. District Court found itself.  Three different lawsuit lawsuits were filed to do something about the Wisconsin election, such as extending deadlines, and waiving witness requirements for mail-in ballots.  Under Wisconsin election law, ballots had to be received by April 7th in order to be counted.  Wisconsin law also gave the municipal canvassing boards until April 13th to certify the vote count to the counties.  The District Court, in a decision entitled Democratic National Committee, et al., v. Marge Bastelmann, et. al., issued a preliminary injunction which, among other things, permitted absentee ballots received by April 13th to be counted, regardless of when the ballots were postmarked.  A party submitted a request to stay the preliminary injunction (i.e. to prevent the injunction from taking effect) to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh (submitting such a request to a Justice on the Supreme Court is normal Court procedure), who in turn referred the matter to the full Court.  In a decision that pitted the five conservative members of the Court against the four liberal members, the majority issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the five member majority spoke as one, granting the stay of the preliminary injunction.  The sole issue for the Court was whether the District Court overstepped its authority by permitting ballots postmarked after April 7th to be counted so long as they were received by April 13th.  That is, the Supreme Court permitted Wisconsin to continue to count ballots received by April 13th, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day, April 7th.

Many liberal pundits saw the Supreme Court's action as one of intentional voter suppression, aimed specifically at helping the Republican Party, and in particular Donald Trump, stay in power once the November presidential and congressional elections come around.

I read the Supreme Court's decision much differently.

Let me be clear, I am all in favor of taking action now to prepare for the November elections, and the possibility that the current crisis may still be around.  I, too, have some fear that Trump and the Republican Party may take some action that may negatively affect the elections.  After all, not only did Russia interfere in his favor in 2016, Trump has already been impeached for seeking Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election.  The only thing that saved him from removal was the fact that the Republicans control the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made sure that the Senate trial was a farce with no witnesses being called at all.  I would love it if state legislatures acted now to address the November elections to expand the availability of early voting and mail-in voting just in case the coronavirus still has us sheltering in our homes at that time.

But let's be clear on some things.  Trump has no authority to do anything directly to change, postpone or cancel the November elections.  There is nothing in the Constitution, or any of the numerous federal statutes addressing the president's emergency powers that grant the president such authority.  How the November elections are to be run is a matter for the people of the several states, through their legislatures, to address.  Many Trump opponents fear he will nonetheless attempt to use the declaration of a national emergency to seize a power that is otherwise not granted to the presidency.

Yet, as I read the U.S. District Court decision, I noticed that the very thing that Trump's critics fear that he will do in the abstract, grab power that he doesn't have, is exactly what the District Court did.  In its opinion, the District Court essentially states, "There is a crisis out there that nobody is doing anything about, so I'm going to create a solution, whole cloth, despite their being no statute or constitutional provision giving me the authority to do so."  It is quite amazingly.  The decision is bereft of any citation to law or constitutional provision giving it the authority to interfere and fundamentally alter Wisconsin's election framework.  The District just says, "Voting is a fundamental right, so here's what you need to do."  That is, the District Court just assumed that it had the authority to make its own deadlines and impose them upon Wisconsin's state government as a whole.  Put another way, the U.S. District Court thought that it could act as if it were a legislature.

Again, if Trump had done this, those very same liberal pundits complaining about the Supreme Court would be up in arms over Trump's action.

Our Constitution engages in a dispersion of powers among not only the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the government of the several states.  This is known as separation of powers when it refers to the three branches of the federal government, and federalism when it refers to the division of powers between the federal government and the governments of the several states.  They are the fundamental principles upon which our system of government is created, in order to avoid any one part of the government becoming too powerful and acting tyrannically.  In this regard, a court that oversteps its authority can be just as tyrannical as an authoritative executive.  The Supreme Court was absolutely within in prerogative to slap down a decision by a U.S. District Court that overstepped its power.

The lesson is two-fold.  First, all branches of government need to respect the limits placed on their authority by the Constitution.  Second, the state legislatures, as the law-making branch of government in their respective states, need to address the November elections now, before it becomes a crisis where well-intentioned courts will feel obligated to step in, regardless of the limits on judicial power.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

References

For general facts about the virus, I referred to the World Health Organization's website.

Information can also be found on the Centers for Disease Control's website.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision can be found here:  Republican National Committee, et al., v. Democratic National Committee, et al., Slip Op. Crt. No. 19A1016 (U.S. Supreme Court April 6, 2020).

The U.S. District Court decision can be found here:  Democratic National Committee, et al., v. Marge Bostelmann, et al., Slip Op. Crt. No. 20-cv-249-wmc (W.D. Wis. April 2, 2020).

Johnson, Jake, "'One of the Most Brazen Acts of Voter Suppression in Modern Times,' as US Supreme Court Blocks Absentee Ballot Extension in Wisconsin," Common Dreams (April 7, 2020).

Liptak, Adam, "Supreme Court Blocks Extended Voting in Wisconsin," The New York Times (April 6, 2020).

Litman, Leah, "The Supreme Court's Wisconsin Decision Is a Terrible Sign for November," The Atlantic (April 7, 2020).

Perrett, Connor, "'Voter suppression on steroids': Wisconsin's decision tohold the state's in-person primary amid the COVID-19 pandemic will suppressvoters, advocates warn," Business Insider (April 7, 2020).

Stern, Mark Joseph, "The Supreme Court's Wisconsin Election Decision is 2020's Bush v. Gore," Slate (April 7, 2020).

I'm Not Dead Yet: How DAPA Has Survived the Supreme Court Decision

Yesterday, in a one sentence decision, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they were deadlocked in the case of United States v. Texas, and therefore the Circuit Court decision stands. 

The media hailed the decision as a major defeat for President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. The President announced in November of 2014 that parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents present in the United States could qualify for a promise that the government will not seek their deportation and a chance to apply for work authorization. The President took matters into his own hands when he believed Congress had become deadlocked on the issue of immigration reform. Critics immediately dubbed the move amnesty. 

Texas and other states filed suit over the measure, claiming the President had no authority to implement the program without congressional authorization. Before the District Court could hold a hearing on the main case, the states sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Administration from implementing the program while the lawsuit was pending. The District Court granted the injunction. The Administration appealed. The Circuit Court upheld the injunction. The Administration sought review before the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, the main case continued before the District Court. 

The Supreme Court decision concerned only the preliminary injunction. Because the main case is still pending, this means that the issue could once again reach the Supreme Court. 

What this means is that the 2016 presidential election has now become a critical election for immigration reform. Justice Antonin Scalia died this year, leaving an open Supreme Court seat. With an even number of Supreme Court justices, any case where the vote is tied means that the lower court decision stands. The Republicans in the Senate have refused to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee to take Scalia's seat. 

This means that the new President will have the power to appoint a new justice, and thereby break the deadlock before the main case reaches the Supreme Court.  The fight over DAPA, therefore is not over; its fate rests in the hands of the voters. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

For an appointment, call (703) 837-8832

Se habla español (571) 551-6069 

The Senate Must Vote on Judge Garland's Nomination

While pursuing Facebook yesterday, I came across a post from Michelle Malkin on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The post was a link to an article in the Conservative Review simply entitled, "What Conservatives Need to Know About Merrick Garland."  When I clicked the link, I was shocked to find a one word answer as the first paragraph of the article. It simply said, "Nothing."

Author Brian Darling's analysis didn't get much more informative. The crux of his argument was that because Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama, he is a liberal and will tip the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of the liberals. 

I was shocked because even though I consider myself a Republican with conservative leanings, my reaction to President Obama's pick was far different. I was surprised by how non-controversial the appointment would be. 

Judge Garland has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit since 1997.  He is currently the Chief Judge.  Because of the location of the DC Circuit, it is the court that tends to hear cases involving Federal policy most often. The court is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. 

In addition, Judge Garland is a former prosecutor who is 63 years old. Not only has he worked in law enforcement, he is not likely to stick around the Supreme Court for a very long time. 

At this point, conservatives point to two cases in which he was involved to ring the alarm bells that he will rob us all of our gun rights. The first is the case that overturned the District of Columbia's gun control law. The case was decided by a three judge panel, and Judge Garland voted for the case to be reheard en banc, which means in front of all of the judges of the DC Circuit. 

The second was a case where Judge Garland agreed that the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a computerized background check was working. 

Neither case hardly says anything about the Judge's views on the Second Amendment. Yet it is enough that Judge Garland acted in a way displeasing to the NRA for conservatives to mobilize opposition by engaging in the Second Amendment fear mongering. 

Conservatives are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. The prospect that his seat on the Supreme Court could be filled by an Obama appointee is just devastating to them. Thus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of announcing that there would be no hearings on any Obama nomination. Instead, the choice would be left to the new president. President Obama has countered with the nomination of a highly respected jurist, who is not likely to stay around for a very long time. The result is that Senate Republicans look far worse than just merely obstructionists. They look like whiny, petulant children. 

One of the most frightening characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and its influence on the Republican Party, has been the uncompromising willingness to shut down normal government functions in the name of promoting conservatism. Faced with very little on the record to challenge a nominee who appears to be eminently qualified, the conservatives resort to fear mongering. Senate leaders should not play this game. Rather, they should do their constitutional duty of allowing the full Senate to give advice and consent by holding hearings on Judge Garland, and sending his nomination to the floor for a vote. 

Link to the Supreme Court's Opinion in United States v. Windsor

The Supreme Court has found provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.  The case is called United States v. Windsor.  You can find the text of the opinion at this link.

The case specifically addresses U.S. estate tax law.  However, I believe that it clears the way for immigration benefits for same sex couples.  This article from the Washington Times agrees with me.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Same Sex Couples, Let's Challenge Immigration Law

The Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe this means that the Federal Government now cannot deny immigration benefits to same sex couples married where their marriage is legal. 

Do you want to apply for permanent residency for your same sex spouse. Call me for an appointment. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

(703) 837-8832

Info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Padilla v. Kentucky & Post-Conviction Relief for Criminal Offenses with Immigration Consequences

On March 31, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, Crt. No. 08-651, which held that the failure to give advice concerning the immigration consequences of a guilty plea amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Immigrants facing deportation or removal because of criminal convictions now face the possibility of using the Supreme Court’s decision to solve their own immigration problems.

Padilla was a permanent resident and veteran of the Vietnam War, where he served his country honorable. He was charged under Kentucky law for transporting marijuana, an offense that carried with it an assured deportation if convicted. According to Padilla, when considering whether to plead guilty, he asked his counsel about the immigration consequences of his conviction. His counsel told him not to worry because of the long time that he had spent in the United States. This advice was dead wrong.

After pleading guilty, Padilla faced removal proceedings. It was at this time that Padilla sought post-conviction relief to withdraw his guilty plea and face trial. The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied his request.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure of counsel to provide advice on the immigration consequences of a guilty plea amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and remanded the case for further proceedings under Kentucky law. In reaching this conclusion, the Court made a number of key findings. First, the Court found that even though immigration is governed by civil law, the immigration consequences of a conviction are inexorably intertwined. Second, the Court noted that there was no distinction between bad advice and no advice. That is, criminal defense counsel is under a duty to provide advice concerning the immigration consequence of a conviction, even if the topic was not affirmatively brought up by the client. Finally, a key point of the Supreme Court’s decision is that Padilla sought to remedy a guilty plea that was allegedly procured by ineffective assistance of counsel.

With the Supreme Court weighing in on the subject, the question now for many facing deportation or removal is how to use Padilla to gain immigration relief.

All people being held by the government have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus. That means, that they can challenge the legality of their detention. Thus, in many instances, it may be possible now to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and argue that the detention is illegal because the conviction was based on a guilty plea procured by counsel’s bad immigration advice.

But, habeas corpus may not be available for everyone facing immigration consequences of their criminal convictions. For example, in Virginia, a habeas corpus action is only available for two years after the final judgment of the trial court, or one year after the final decision on appeal.

Virginia has one more avenue that may be available. That is the writ of error coram vobis. This is a procedure meant to correct errors that affect the validity and regularity of the judgment. In Commonwealth v. Mohamed, 71 Va. Cir. 383 (2006), a defendant attacked the length of his sentence, claiming his criminal defense counsel failed to advise him properly on the fact that the length of his sentence would cause his to be deportable. The Circuit Court of Arlington County permitted the defendant, who had served his sentence completely, to use the coram vobis procedure to reduce his sentence in order to avoid deportation proceedings.

It is important to note that Mohamed did not challenge a guilty plea itself. Indeed, in Virginia, by pleading guilty, a defendant waives a host of rights, including the right to appeal. A question remains as to whether the coram vobis procedure can be used to withdraw a guilty plea when based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Virginia Supreme Court in Dobie v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 762, 96 S.E.2d 747 (1957), held that coram vobis cannot be sought merely if the criminal defendant thinks he can obtain a better result by going to trial.

However, Dobie was decided long before Padilla. And, Padilla specifically addresses the situation where the guilty plea was alleged procured because of bad advice on the immigration consequences of the plea. The argument would be that the guilty plea itself is invalid because it stemmed from the ineffective immigration advice.

Such a strategy remains untested. Its success is, therefore, unknown. Moreover, this strategy faces the hurdle that guilty pleas are difficult to attack under Virginia law. However, it may be the best hope available for immigrants who have already served their sentences in Virginia, and now face the immigration consequences of their guilty plea.

Update (September 27, 2012):  The Virginia Supreme Court case of Morris v. Commonwealth has pretty much shut the door on obtaining post-conviction relief based on Padilla.  Morris held that the writ of error coram vobis and the writ of audita querela were not available in Virginia to address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  The only avenue open for post-conviction relief based on a Padilla claim is a writ of habeas corpus.

There is, however, a statute of limitations on a writ of habeas corpus in Virginia.  It must be filed two years after the final judgment of the trial court, or one year after the appellate decision is final.

This creates a gross inequity in Virginia.  A person can have a conviction of a deportable crime that is ten years old.  There is no statute of limitation on the ability of the Government to use such a conviction for deportation.  But, that person may not have any clue that the advice he or she received when accepting the plea was faulty until ICE takes him or her into detention and starts removal proceedings.  That person would then have no ability in Virginia to challenge the conviction based on the Sixth Amendment violation.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com