Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Supreme Court. Gerrymanderings. Bocciate le sentenze dei giudici liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Gerrymanders__001

Supreme Court temporarily blocks rulings requiring new voting maps for Ohio and Michigan [Nbc]

«Lower courts had invalidated the GOP-friendly maps as partisan gerrymandering and ordered them redrawn before the 2020 election.»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymandering, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court’s orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled Legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” the ruling said.»

* * * * * *

Abbiamo già ampiamente riportato sul problema del gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Ogni dieci anni, ovvero quando ne emergessero le necessità, gli stati hanno la possibilità di ridisegnare con una apposita legge i confini dei distretti elettorali, equiripartendo al meglio possibile la popolazione nei seggi. Il termine gerrymandering designa una mappa di distretto elettorale artatamente manipolata per ottenere un vantaggio elettorale.

Negli ultimi anni i liberal democratici hanno contestato la mappatura fatta da governi repubblicani, portando il tutto nanti corti federali ove sedessero giudici di eguale dottrina. Queste corti avevano immediatamente bloccato la mappatura, imponendo agli stati il ritorno al pristino.

Orbene, il tutto è finito davanti alla Suprema Corte, che ha cassato le sentenze emesse da quelle corti inferiori.

La faccenda è al momento tutt’altro che conclusa, ma l’orientamento della Suprema Corte sembrerebbe essere oramai definito.

Con la nomina delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh, Mr Trump ha ricostituito la Suprema Corte con giudici ligi e rispettosi della costituzione: l’epoca in cui i giudici liberal democratici imponevano la loro ideologia con sentenze tribunizie sembrerebbe andare al termine. È la fine dei processi alle intenzioni, dei processi politici, dell’uso partigiano delle corti di giustizia.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions»

*

«The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.»

*

«While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well»

*

«Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state»

* * * * * * *

Entro qualche mese la Suprema Corte dovrà sentenziare su molte questioni che avrebbero dovuto essere oggetto di dibattito politico in sede congressuale. A seconda di come orienteranno il giudizio, il mondo potrebbe subire una mutazione.



Reuters. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances. In the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states of discriminating against Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and freedom of association.

Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S. politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology, illegally shaping the outcome of elections.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely partisan purposes.

The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25 state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while Ohio’s case involved 16 U.S. House districts.

A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the Democratic voters’ favor in the Michigan case, calling gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug. 1.

A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to create a plan to fix the map by June 14.

Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states, the party in power controls the map-making.

*


MSN. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions. The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state. In the other case, Democratic lawmakers in Maryland face similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Sentenza Tax Board v. Hyatt. Ci interessa e molto da vicino.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-22.

2019-05-15__Scoturs__001

La sentenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti sul caso Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299  riguarda sicuramente l’America, ma ha anche grandi risvolti sia per la giurisprudenza in generale sia alla fine per tutto il mondo, Europa in particolare.

Essendo una sentenza molto tecnica non è intuitivo cogliere il nesso: cercheremo di spiegarlo al meglio: i giuristi perdonino se useremo un linguaggio piano, ma lo scopo è quello di farsi intendere dal largo pubblico. Le persone con conoscenze specifiche troveranno piacevole leggere il dispositivo qui riportato.

*

In sintesi succinta:

– vieta di portare in giudizio uno Stato nella Corte di Giustizia di un altro Stato.

– afferma il diritto della Corte Suprema di sentenziare anche variando ovvero annullando sentenze pregresse.

*

«Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states»

*

«most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits»

*

«there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts»

*

«The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled»

*

«Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next»

*

«In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax. The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.»

*

«In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible»

*

«Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.»

*

«The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”»

*

«Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision. »

*

«The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law, …. Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives. …. To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay»

* * * * * * * *

Il problema è affascinante da un punto di vista giuridico, massimamente in un sistema giuridico basato sul common law, ove le sentenza acquisiscono valore di leggi.

L’errore sottile si insinua qualora si cercasse di massimizzare l’enunciato di una sentenza.

Le sentenze pregresse dovrebbero essere considerate sempre con il massimo rispetto, formale e sostanziale, ma né possono né debbono essere divinizzate. Come tutte le azioni umane possono rivelare nel tempo vizi di forma o carenze di dottrina, possono generare effetti secondari non voluti, indesiderati ed indesiderabili, ovvero potrebbero dimostrarsi superate dai tempi.  Nel ragionare su queste evenienza, Sua Giustizia Thomas reintroduce nella prassi mentale della Suprema Corte ciò che un tempo era denominato ‘buon senso’.

Non solo. Avoca alla Suprema Corte il potere e l’obbligo di riformare sentenze pregresse, in ossequio a quanto prima enunciato.

* * * * * * * *


Il malcontento e la costernazione dei liberal democratici è ben descritto nei seguenti articoli.

Supreme Court Weighs Core Questions of Precedent and States’ Rights

Supreme Court Precedents That May Be at Risk

«Fourteen cases had civil rights at their core, like rulings involving voting rights, affirmative action and deportation. However, one case has already been overturned by Congressional action or another may require assistance from Congress before a new Supreme Court majority could act.

In 2009, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act after the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed strict time limits for bringing workplace discrimination suits.

In a 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, which essentially gave Congress a chance to redraft the law. Should Congress rewrite it, a new liberal majority would most likely sustain the new version.»

The Threat to Roe v. Wade in the Case of the Missing Precedent

* * * * * * * *

Vediamo adesso cosa questa sentenza implica per l’America e per il resto del mondo. Quindi anche per l’Italia.

Per i liberal democratici stava diventando abitudine citare gli stati che legiferavano a maggioranza repubblicana presso Corti di altri stati a maggioranza democratica, i giudici delle quali regolarmente bloccavano le leggi deliberate dalle maggioranze espresse dal Popolo Sovrano. Si metteva così in atto un ostruzionismo giudiziario di lunga durata, che era quindi abilmente utilizzato per bollare come illegale ogni legge promulgata dai repubblicani, salvo poi abbandonare l’argomento quando interveniva la Corte Suprema a ristabilire il rule of law.

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

L’incriminazione del giudice Joseph ha costituito un altro punto di svolta nella competizione giudiziaria, evidenziando come i comportamenti partigiani dei giudizi non sarebbe stati più a lungo tollerati.

Immediatamente, giudici e media si son fatti silenziosi e cauti.

Più delicata e sottile è invece la questione che la Corte Suprema possa rivedere sentenze già emesse.

Sono infatti in attesa di essere sottoposte al vaglio della Suprema Corte un largo numero di sentenze emesse da Corti inferiori inerenti problemi etici e morali che così stanno a cuore dei liberal democratici, massimamente poi la questione dell’aborto.

Alabama passes bill banning abortion

Avendo fatto dell’aborto e dell’etica il proprio programma politico, i liberal democratici si sentono scendere per le ossa che questo potrebbe essere semplicemente distrutto in via giudiziaria. Ed il tutto con grande clamore.

Ma il crollo dei liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti avrebbe consistenti ripercussioni sull’Europa, ove molte nazioni sono governate ancora da una loro maggioranza.


The New York Times. 2019-05-13. Justices Split Over the Power of Precedent

WASHINGTON — Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. The ruling itself will probably not be particularly consequential, as most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits. By one count, there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts.

The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled. In dissent, after repeatedly citing a 1992 decision that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he feared for the future.

“Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,” he wrote.

Monday’s decision, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299, resolved a long-running dispute involving Gilbert P. Hyatt, who had made money from technology patents, and California’s tax authorities. In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax.

The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.

Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.

In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible.

In an earlier encounter with Mr. Hyatt’s case, the court in 2016 came close to overruling that decision. But the court was short-handed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and it deadlocked 4 to 4.

Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.

In dissent, Justice Breyer took issue with both points. Before and after the adoption of the Constitution, he wrote, states generally granted sovereign immunity to other states — but only as a matter of grace and self-interest. Those that desired to take a different approach could do so, Justice Breyer wrote.

The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision.

The earlier decision, he said, was poorly reasoned, inconsistent with related decisions and in tension with later legal developments. But he said that Mr. Hyatt and others had relied on the decision, a factor cutting the opposite way.

“We acknowledge that some plaintiffs, such as Hyatt, have relied on Hall by suing sovereign states,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Because of our decision to overrule Hall, Hyatt unfortunately will suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the board for its egregious conduct.”

Justice Breyer responded that there was no good reason to overrule the precedent.

“The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law,” he wrote. “Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives.” He added, “To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay.”

Justice Breyer did not address the fate of Roe v. Wade directly. But he sounded a general note of caution, saying it was “dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Giuseppe Sandro mela.

2019-05-17.

Supreme Court

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché complessa è la struttura degli Stati Uniti.

Anche se nominalmente politica e giustizia dovrebbero essere poteri separati, nei fatti sicuramente non lo sono, se non altro perché i giudici sono di nomina politica, ancorché vidimata da un assenso senatoriale. Ma il senato è pur sempre composto da politici.

Nei tempi passati, quando un giudice di basso livello si imbatteva in un problema che avesse coinvolto un giudizio costituzionale, era consuetudine rimandare il tutto alla Suprema Corte, attendendo quindi il suo giudizio.

Il sistema ha retto fino a circa due decenni or sono, quando i liberal democratici hanno usato i tribunali di baso livello come arma politica: i giudici di basso livello iniziarono non solo a dare pareri di costituzionalità, ma soprattutto iniziarono ad emettere provvedimenti di blocco su scala federale.

Questo fenomeno è diventato gigantesco con la presidenza Trump, del quale quasi ogni ordine Esecutivo era stato bloccato da un giudice distrettuale. Poi, dopo un anno circa, la Corte Suprema rimetteva le cose a loro posto, bacchettando anche i giudici inferiori, ma era evidente sia l’intromissione dei giudici nella politica sia l’abuso  del potere operativo del giudice.

Il problema giuridico si configura quindi nello stabilire norme giuridiche inequivocabili che regolino la possibilità che un giudice distrettuale possa emettere ordinanza a valore federale.

È semplicemente evidente come un sentenza della Corte Suprema possa bloccare alla radice la guerra legale dei liberal democratici.

«Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies»

*

«federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined»

*

«A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties»

*

«In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions»

*

«Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined»

* * * * * * * *


Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says

«Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out a policy across the entire country, have beset President Donald Trump since he took office. District courts have blocked administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.»

* * * * * * *

Si faccia grande attenzione

«The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that

district judges can decide no more than the cases before them»

Non è un cavillo di lana caprina: qualsiasi sia la decisione della Corte Suprema sarà pur sempre una decisione epocale.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-09. Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Prevent Nationwide Injunctions

– Administration has previously attemped to curb injunctions

– High court hasn’t ruled on question because policies upheld

*

Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies.

Pence complained Wednesday in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society that federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined. On Tuesday, an appeals court lifted such an injunction against a Trump policy that allows U.S. immigration authorities to force some migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mex while their cases are adjudicated.

“A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties,” Pence said in prepared remarks. “This judicial obstruction is unprecedented.”

“In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court,” Pence said.

The Trump administration has already tried on several occasions to persuade the Supreme Court to curb nationwide injunctions. It was an issue when the court considered Trump’s travel ban last year, but the justices didn’t reach the question because they upheld the ban in its entirety.

In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch,” Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined.

The administration similarly offered the Supreme Court a chance to curb nationwide injunctions in a clash over military service by transgender people. Lower courts had blocked Trump’s effort to bar most transgender people from service. At the Supreme Court, the administration said those orders should, at most, cover the people involved in the case.

Much like with the travel ban, the high court didn’t address the issue because it let the policy take full effect.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-15.

2019-05-11__Giudice_Joseph__001

Quanto è successo il 23 aprile negli Stati Uniti ha qualche precedente sparso nella storia secolare dell’America, ma mai era successo in questa maniera.

Tre anni or sono era nato il caso del giudice Joseph Mutava.

Suspended Judge Joseph Mutava defends himself on charges leveled against him

Suspended Judge Joseph Mutava is expected to face the tribunal

Ma questa volta la faccenda è ben differente, come spiega il The New York Times:

Judge Is Charged With Helping Immigrant Escape ICE at Courthouse

«Federal prosecutors charged a state judge and a former court officer in Massachusetts with obstruction of justice on Thursday for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant escape from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at a courthouse last year.

The indictment of the judge, Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, 51, and the officer, Wesley MacGregor, 56, was a dramatic turn in the long-running clash between the Trump administration and state governments that have resisted its hard-line approach to immigration.

Prosecutors accused Judge Joseph and Mr. MacGregor of letting their beliefs trump federal immigration law when they allegedly helped the man, who was not named in the indictment, sneak out of Newton District Courthouse in Newton, Mass., in March 2018. The judge ordered the man to go to a basement facility, where he was let out a back door, rather than into the lobby, where she knew that an ICE officer was waiting for him, prosecutors say.

“The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime,” United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said in a statement. “We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law.”»

* * * * * * *

«The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime»

Chi avesse pensato che questo fosse un evento folkloristico incorrerebbe in un severo errore di giudizio.

Si è mossa la Procura Federale

«We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law»

* * *

Benissimo.

Adesso i giudici liberal democratici sanno cosa spetta a quanti si arroghino il diritto di amministrare la giustizia dal loro alto scranno con criteri di faziosità politica.

Non a caso da tale data sui media liberal democratici è sceso un ossessivo silenzio stampa sull’argomento.

Ma la faccenda non finisce sicuramente qui.

«The state Supreme Judicial Court has suspended Joseph»

*

«and cut off her $184,694 salary»

*

«Joseph, who has been suspended without pay, and MacGregor appeared in court Thursday and pleaded not guilty to all counts. No date has been set for their next court appearance»

Già. Nessuno, ma proprio nessuno, avrebbe mai piacere che questa causa sia discussa velocemente.

* * * *

Così adesso il giudice Joseph è sospesa e senza stipendio.

Una colletta che avrebbe dovuto raccogliere 750,000 dollari si è fermata a 31.600.

Adesso e per circa due anni il giudice Joseph è condita per le feste e sta sperimentando la solidarietà dei suoi sodali. Portare avanti una difesa sarà cosa lunga e costosa, ed alla fine si schianterà sullo scoglio della Suprema Corte, da sempre oltremodo rigida in casi del genere.

* * * * * * *

Adesso guardate con molta attenzione la foto riportata a seguito.

Tanto se la rideva soddisfatta e goduta quando pronunciava sentenze politiche, mandando in rovina gli avversari ideologici, tanto adesso inizia a piangere su sé stessa.

Ride bene esclusivamente chi ride ultimo. Ed i liberal sanno bene che saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.

2019-05-11__Giudice_Joseph__002


Usa Breaking News. 2019-05-11. Natick attorney launches ’emergency’ defense fund for indicted Judge Joseph

A Natick lawyer who believes state Judge Shelley M. Joseph has been bulldozed into a financial crisis by her indictment Thursday on charges she hindered a federal immigration investigation has launched a fundraising campaign to help pay for her defense. As of this morning, the Shelley Joseph Legal Defense Fund had raised more than $31,600 from 220 donors toward a goal of $750,000. The state Supreme Judicial Court has suspended Joseph, 51, of Natick, and cut off her $184,694 salary. Attorney Alan S. Fanger, the fund’s organizer, said in a statement to the Herald, “Those of us who know Shelley Joseph know that she takes her oath and her role as a judge seriously and would not violate the law.  Shelley is fighting politically motivated charges and expects to be vindicated.  As a result, she and her family are facing a significant financial crisis due to the outrageous action by the United States Attorney General’s Office. Shelley’s family obligation to pay for two college tuitions, the mortgage, daily living expenses and legal defense fees and expenses continue despite these unproven allegations. “In this dire emergency, we have carefully consulted with experts to comply with judicial ethical rules – even though she is not currently an active judge – and have created a fund to accept donations for her defense,” Fanger said. ….»

*


Patch. 2019-05-11. Indicted Judge From Natick: Legal Fund Established

A Natick lawyer set up a GoFundMe campaign for Natick resident Judge Shelley Joseph, who is facing obstruction of justice charges.

*

A Natick lawyer is standing behind Newton Judge and Natick resident, Shelley M. Joseph, after she was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice relating to a federal immigration investigation. Joseph is a Newton District Court Judge who is accused of helping a man set for deportation escape federal immigration agents. Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Alan S. Fanger created the fund the day after Joseph appeared in court. As of Monday morning, the fund has raised $31,000 with a goal of $750,000. Over 200 people have contributed to the fund. Joseph was suspended without pay and Fanger wrote in the fund description that this leaves her in a position to “raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to afford a quality legal defense to federal charges that carry with them lengthy prison terms.”

Fanger said in the description that the case represented “monumental prosecutorial overreach.” The fund requests that all donations be made anonymously.

Joseph and MacGregor are accused of helping an undocumented man escape from Newton District Court on April 2, 2018. According to court documents, Joseph knew the ICE officer was waiting outside in the lobby to detain the man, who was facing drug charges.

Later that afternoon, the audio recording captured Joseph, the defense attorney and the ADA speaking about the defendant and the ICE detainer. According to court documents, Joseph then ordered the courtroom clerk to turn off the audio recorder — which it was for just under a minute, which is a violation of District Court rules.

According to court documents, the defense attorney asked to speak with Medina-Perez downstairs, Joseph let them and had MacGregor escort the attorney and an interpreter downstairs to the lockup and used his security access card to open the rear door and let man go at 3:01 p.m.

Fanger told the Boston Herald, “Those of us who know Shelley Joseph know that she takes her oath and her role as a judge seriously and would not violate the law. Shelley is fighting politically motivated charges and expects to be vindicated. “

In reaction to Joseph’s indictment, two Democratic district attorneys plan to file an “unprecedented” lawsuit in federal court Monday that would ban U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from local courthouses.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

La Procura Federale incrimina un giudice liberal per ‘conspiracy and obstruction’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela

2019-04-26.

Reni Guido. San Michele Arcangelo schiaccia satana. 1636

Sono oltre due decenni che i giudici di nomina liberal usano la carica che ricoprono per perseguire azioni politiche in contrasto con le leggi vigenti e la costituzione degli Stati Uniti.

Spesso la Suprema Corte ha definito le loro sentenze come ‘stravaganti‘, ma altrettanto spesso esse configurano veri e propri reati. Reati che non potevano essere perseguiti perché i tribunali di competenza erano retti da altrettanti giudici liberal.

Incriminare sotto queste condizioni un giudice richiede molto coraggio personale a causa delle inevitabili controreazioni: ed è la prima volta che accade da più di un secolo.

Sicuramente alla fine degli iter giudiziari il caso approderà alla Suprema Corte, che quindi dirà l’ultima parola in merito.

Di certo però, da oggi gli spigliati liberal democratici che ricoprono l’incarico di giudice dovranno essere ben più cauti nell’emettere sentenze e provvedimenti, perché si è inaugurata l’epoca in cui gli abusi si pagano i prima persona.

Qui non è problema di Trump oppure non Trump: è il ballo il rule of law, lo stato di diritto, e la credibilità ed onorabilità del sistema giudiziario americano.

* * * * * * *

Reuters riporta così la notizia:

Massachusetts judge faces federal charges for blocking immigration arrest

«U.S. federal prosecutors on Thursday charged a Massachusetts judge and court officer with conspiracy and obstruction, saying they blocked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from arresting an illegal immigrant at a 2018 court proceeding. The move marks the latest skirmish over immigration between President Donald Trump’s administration and local governments who have resisted his crackdown. The state’s Democratic attorney general called the charges “politically motivated.”

The charges target Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph, 51, and Massachusetts Trial Court Officer Wesley MacGregor, 56.

They focus on an April 2018 hearing in Newton District Court, outside Boston, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer intended to arrest an unidentified suspected illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic facing a drug charge. ….»

* * * * * * *

«United States Attorney Andrew Lelling of Massachusetts said a state judge intentionally interfered with the enforcement of federal law by helping an immigrant evade an ICE officer»

*

«Federal prosecutors charged a state judge and a former court officer in Massachusetts with obstruction of justice on Thursday for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant escape from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at a courthouse last year»

*

«The indictment of the judge, Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, 51, and the officer, Wesley MacGregor, 56, was a dramatic turn in the long-running clash between the Trump administration and state governments that have resisted its hard-line approach to immigration»

*

«Prosecutors accused Judge Joseph and Mr. MacGregor of letting their beliefs trump federal immigration law when they allegedly helped the man, who was not named in the indictment, sneak out of Newton District Courthouse in Newton, Mass., in March 2018»

*

«The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime, …. We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law»

*

«If convicted, the judge could face up to 25 years in prison and Mr. MacGregor could face up to 30 years, prosecutors said.»

* * * * * * *

Si deve ammettere come sia finita un’epoca.

L’accusa che il giudice Joseph e il sig. MacGregor abbiano volutamente e scientemente operato perché le loro convinzioni politiche prevalessero sulla legge federale in una cospirazione potrebbe costare 25 anni di carcere al giudice e 30 anni di carcere all’impiegato.

Bene.

Da oggi i giudici liberal sanno che pagheranno di persona ogni abuso compiuto.

*


Bbc. 2019-04-26. US judge charged with aiding undocumented immigrant in escape

A Massachusetts judge and court officer have been charged for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant dodge immigration officials and escape court.

The two allegedly allowed the man to exit through a courthouse back door while an immigration officer waited outside to arrest him.

Boston-area judge Shelley Joseph and Wesley MacGregor have been charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

The man was in court on drug charges and for being a fugitive from justice.

In their first court appearance on 25 April, both Judge Joseph, 51, and Mr MacGregor, 46, pleaded not guilty and were released.

According to court documents, an agent from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) attended an April 2018 hearing for the man in a Newton, Massachusetts district court with the intention of apprehending him.

The suspect, unidentified in court documents, was named Jose Medina-Perez, according to local media.

The Dominican Republic native had reportedly been deported from the US twice, in 2003 and 2007, the Boston Globe reported.

Court documents cite an order, issued upon his second removal, that prohibits Mr Medina-Perez from entering the US until 2027, according to the newspaper.

The suspect’s lawyer allegedly told Judge Joseph he thought that Ice had the wrong man.

The indictment describes a subsequent conversation, captured by the court recorder, between Judge Joseph and the lawyer regarding his client’s pending arrest.

“Ice is gonna get him?” she allegedly asked, adding “I’m not gonna allow them to come in here.”

Prosecutors say Judge Joseph then arranged for Mr Medina-Perez to exit through a rear door as the Ice agent waited for the suspect in the lobby of the courthouse.

Judge Joseph and Mr MacGregor were both charged with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and two counts of obstruction of justice. Mr MacGregor was also charged with perjury.

The judge has been suspended without pay by the state Supreme Judicial Court judicial. Mr MacGregor recently retired from his position as court officer last month.

US Attorney Andrew Lelling, the top federal prosecutor in the state, said the charges were not meant as a political statement.

“This case is about the rule of law,” Mr Lelling said.

“The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law and that is a crime.”

But the charges were met with almost instant rebuke from state attorney general Maura Healey, who called the indictment a “radical and politically motivated attack on our state and the independence of the court.”

The Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called the case “preposterous, ironic, and deeply damaging to the rule of law”.

“This decision seems to have little to do with the actual facts, and everything to do with enforcing the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.”

The charged rhetoric underscores mounting tensions over President Donald Trump’s administration and its immigration crackdown.

Last month, US officials said the US-Mexico border was at a “breaking point” amid an “unprecedented” surge in migrant numbers.

*


The New York Times. 2019-04-26. U.S. Charges Judge With Helping Immigrant Escape ICE at Courthouse

United States Attorney Andrew Lelling of Massachusetts said a state judge intentionally interfered with the enforcement of federal law by helping an immigrant evade an ICE officer.

*

Federal prosecutors charged a state judge and a former court officer in Massachusetts with obstruction of justice on Thursday for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant escape from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at a courthouse last year.

The indictment of the judge, Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, 51, and the officer, Wesley MacGregor, 56, was a dramatic turn in the long-running clash between the Trump administration and state governments that have resisted its hard-line approach to immigration.

Prosecutors accused Judge Joseph and Mr. MacGregor of letting their beliefs trump federal immigration law when they allegedly helped the man, who was not named in the indictment, sneak out of Newton District Courthouse in Newton, Mass., in March 2018. The judge ordered the man to go to a basement facility, where he was let out a back door, rather than into the lobby, where she knew that an ICE officer was waiting for him, prosecutors say.

“The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime,” United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said in a statement. “We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law.”

Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts sharply criticized the charges.

“Today’s indictment is a radical and politically motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts,” Ms. Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “It is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system that federal prosecutors should not recklessly interfere with the operation of state courts and their administration of justice.”

Judge Joseph and Mr. MacGregor were each charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice, prosecutors said. Mr. MacGregor was also charged with perjury for allegedly lying to a grand jury about the episode.

Both pleaded not guilty, according to The Associated Press, which said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had suspended Judge Joseph without pay.

If convicted, the judge could face up to 25 years in prison and Mr. MacGregor could face up to 30 years, prosecutors said. They could each also face a fine of $250,000.

Tom Hoopes, a lawyer for Judge Joseph, said in an email that she was “absolutely innocent.”

“This case is absolutely political,” he wrote.

Mr. MacGregor’s lawyer, Scott Lauer, called the indictment “federal immigration enforcement run amok” and said the allegations were “factually wrong and legally questionable.”

Matthew Segal, the legal director for the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts, said the indictment flew in the face of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct, which says judges and court personnel have an obligation to ensure that people coming before them, including people who are not citizens, can be heard.

Mr. Segal said the prosecution would also be complicated by a 2017 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Lunn v. Commonwealth, that ruled state law enforcement officers do not have the authority to arrest someone based on an order from ICE.

“The government will have a real uphill climb on some of the elements of this case,” Mr. Segal said. “I don’t think it would be permissible for a Massachusetts judge to assist ICE or to have a court security officer assist ICE in apprehending someone who is coming to a Massachusetts court to be heard.”

Prosecutors said the immigrant was arrested by Newton Police on March 30, 2018, and charged with drug possession and being a fugitive from Pennsylvania.

A national law enforcement database matched his fingerprints with someone who was deported from the United States twice, in 2003 and 2007, and subsequently banned from the country until 2027.

ICE learned of his arrest and issued a federal immigration detainer that asked local law enforcement to hold him for 48 hours until ICE could take him into custody.

The police transferred him to the courthouse, where prosecutors said the probation office was aware of the detainer, as were the man’s defense lawyer, David Jellinek, and a prosecutor who was not named in the indictment.

An ICE officer went to the courthouse on April 2 to observe the man’s hearing and detain him if he were released. According to the indictment, the judge instructed the clerk to tell the officer to leave the courtroom and wait outside. He was told the man would leave through the lobby if he were released.

A courtroom recording device picked up a conversation between the judge and others in the courtroom, a partial transcript of which was included in the indictment. It showed them uneasy with the presence of the ICE officer.

Mr. Jellinek and the prosecutor said they agreed that the man in custody was not the fugitive from Pennsylvania. And Mr. Jellinek said his client denied being wanted by ICE.

“ICE is going to pick him up if he walks out the front door,” Mr. Jellinek said. “But I think the best thing for us to do is to clear the fugitive issue, release him on a personal, and hope that he can avoid ICE.… That’s the best I can do.”

The judge said she could order him held for another day “if you need more time to figure this out.”

The prosecutor then brought up the ICE detainer. “I feel like that’s separate and apart from what my role is,” the prosecutor said.

“ICE is going to get him?” the judge asked. She then ordered the recorder to be turned off, which the indictment said was in violation of Massachusetts court rules.

When the recorder was turned back on 52 seconds later, the fugitive charge was dismissed and the man was ordered released.

But instead of sending him to the lobby, the judge ordered him to go to the basement lockup facility, where Mr. MacGregor let him out through a back door, the indictment said.

Meanwhile, the courtroom recorder continued to roll upstairs.

“There was a representative from, uh, ICE here in the court,” the clerk told the judge. “To visit the lockup.”

“That’s fine,” Judge Joseph replied. “I’m not going to allow them to come in here. But he’s been released on this.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Respinte le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del 9° Circuito

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-25.

Supreme Court

Qui il testo originale della sentenza 17-988.

«The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data»

*

«The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority»

*

«The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings»

*

«The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one»

*

«Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial»

*

«The judge agreed that arbitration was the right forum but said class arbitration was permitted by the arbitration clause in the employment agreement»

* * * * * * * *

Chi mai si fosse illuso che i liberal democratici abbiano a cuore la gente resterà amaramente disilluso.

I giudici federali del Nono Circuito, tutti liberal, avevano sentenziato la costituzionalità delle class action per questa categoria di problematiche.

Questa sentenza avrebbe permesso la presentazione di class action anche per motivazioni minime.

Tradotto in altri termini, gli avvocati liberal, lavorando fianco a fianco a molte organizzazioni sindacali, avrebbero potuto agire in modo indiscriminato: le sole cause al momento pendenti assommano richieste di refusione per oltre 340 miliardi di dollari americani.

La Corte Suprema ha ristabilito lo stato di diritto, the rule of law, rendendo ragione ai Cittadini ed alla società civile: ha respinto le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del Nono Circuito.

Si preannunciano tempi molto duri per quanti interpretino in modo fantasioso i dettami costituzionali ai fini di mera bottega personale.


The New York Times. 2019-04-24. Split 5 to 4, Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Class Arbitrations

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority.

The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one.

Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial.

Wednesday’s decision, Lamps Plus v. Varela, No. 17-988, started in 2016, when a hacker posing as a company official persuaded an employee of Lamps Plus, which sells lighting fixtures, to disclose the tax filings of about 1,300 workers. The hacker used the information to file a fraudulent tax return in the name of Frank Varela, a Lamps Plus employee.

Mr. Varela had signed an employment agreement requiring him to resolve disputes with Lamps Plus through arbitration. But he went to court, filing a class-action suit against the company on behalf of himself and other Lamps Plus employees.

Lamps Plus asked the judge to do two things: send the case to arbitration and require Mr. Varela to pursue only his own claim there. The judge agreed that arbitration was the right forum but said class arbitration was permitted by the arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

The arbitration clause said that “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.” That language, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, meant that workers could pursue their claims as a class in the arbitration proceeding.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said that language allowed the workers to band together. “A reasonable — and perhaps the most reasonable — interpretation of this expansive language is that it authorizes class arbitration,” the majority said.

In dissent, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez said the majority had engaged in a “palpable evasion” of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision that said it was unlawful to require class arbitration where the arbitration agreement did not discuss the matter one way or the other. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoting an earlier dissent, said the decision was the court’s latest effort “to deny employees and consumers ‘effective relief against powerful economic entities.’”

“Propelled by the court’s decisions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and consumer contracts have proliferated.”

Writing for the majority on Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 2010 decision resolved Mr. Varela’s case. Since Mr. Varela and Lamps Plus had not expressly agreed to class arbitration, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, only individual arbitrations were allowed.

The chief justice wrote that class arbitrations were at odds with the basic goals of arbitration, which he said were speed and simplicity.

All four of the court’s liberal members wrote dissents. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had created a body of law whose purpose was to frustrate class actions and class-wide arbitrations.

She said the court should have endorsed a common principle of contract interpretation that resolves ambiguities against the party — here, Lamps Plus — that drafted the provision. Using ellipses to indicate a skeptical pause, she wrote that Wednesday’s decision would never have appeared among decisions by the court “save that this case involves … class proceedings.”

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Sistemi Politici

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-23.

Supreme Court

Nei suoi ultimi cento pronunciamenti, la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha dovuto esaminare ben ottantanove ricorsi fatti da liberal democratici, per la maggior parte su problemi, veri o presunti tali, relativi a problemi sessuali. Non sanno pensare ad altro.

Gli americani ed il mondo attendono con pazienza che l’ondata si attenui e le Loro Giustizie possano riprendere le usuali occupazioni. Sono infatti pendenti numerose cause inerenti il commercio e gli usuali rapporti umani. Basterebbe solo pensare al contenzioso sorto a seguito dell’avvento dei dazi.

*

«The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.»

*

«The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”»

*

«The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” …. The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”»

*

«The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing»

*

«Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.»

* * * * * * *

Tanto per gradire, ci si dovrebbe ricordare che il 23 aprile sarà per la Suprema Corte una giornata impegnativa.

Supreme Court expands April 23 census arguments

«The Supreme Court says it will try to resolve all the legal issues about a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The justices on Friday are expanding their April 23 arguments to include whether asking about citizenship would violate the Constitution’s call for a once-a-decade count of all people, not just citizens. The court already was considering whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question is arbitrary and capricious under federal law.

The court is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling in New York that the decision violated federal law. Since then, a judge in California said a citizenship question also would violate the Constitution.

A final answer about a citizenship question is needed soon to allow printing of the census questionnaire.»

*

Questa sarà una decisione che ammetterà oppure escluderà dal voto decine di milioni di persone, immigrate illegalmente.

A nostro sommesso parere sarà una decisione ben più impegnativa di quella inerente una traversita.


The New York Times. 201-04-22. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Bias Law Covers Gay and Transgender Workers

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against gay and transgender workers.

The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbids employment discrimination based on sex. The question for the justices is whether that language bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.

The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing.

She sued and won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII.

“It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said, adding, “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

There is a second issue in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that could allow her to win however the Supreme Court might rule on whether Title VII applies to discrimination against transgender people. In 1989, the court said discrimination against workers because they did not conform to gender stereotypes was a form of sex discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ms. Stephens on that ground, too, saying she had been fired “for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the funeral home’s perception of how she should behave or appear based on her sex.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that Title VII bars discrimination against gay and transgender people. In recent briefs, the Trump administration has taken the opposite position.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Senza categoria, Unione Europea

Romania. Ire della EU per aver accorciato i termini di prescrizione.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-21.

Romania

La Romania ha al momento la Presidenza dell’Unione Europea: difficile ignorare i suoi problemi di politica interna.

Questo stato ha con l’Unione Europea, meglio con la attuale eurodirigenza uscente, un annoso contenzioso.

La Romania rivendica infatti la propria sovranità nazionale nel legiferare su problematiche interne, mentre l’attuale dirigenza europea ritiene di essere in diritto di imporle il proprio volere.

Chiariamo immediatamente un problema lessicologico che riflette le differenti visioni.

Per la Commissione Europea uscente, il termine “rule of law”, traducibile con la dizione ‘stato di diritto’ si concretizza nella adozione delle visioni giuridiche dell’idealismo liberal socialista. Come conseguenza, la Commissione Europea uscente tutela allo spasimo i giudici che aderiscano a tale ideologia, e considera reato l’opporsi ad essi ed al loro operato. Senza giudici della propria sponda questa eurodirigenza non potrebbe farla da padrona in casa rumena.

*

Come solitamente avviene, dietro le altisonanti parole di etica, morale e giustizia si celano sordidi interessi personali.

Romania. I gerarchi EU la odiano per motivi di sordida bottega.

«Un giudizio sommario sui governi che si sono succeduti in Romania potrebbe essere lo constatare che il pil era 42.815 mld Usd nel 1998 passati ai 210 mld Usd nel 2017: è quintuplicato in venti anni. Il pil procapite è passato nello stesso periodo da 1,897 Usd a 10,765 Usd. ….

Sulle coste rumene, e nelle acque di competenza economica, si trovano grandi giacimenti di gas naturale, che la Romania decise di sfruttare appieno. ….

As a new offshore oil and gas exploration law comes into force in Romania, the EU nation’s promise of becoming a key gas producer in Europe could be threatened. Not that Bucharest seems bothered.

Romania’s untapped oil and gas potential of up to 200 billion cubic meters, or bcm, in the Black Sea has attracted the interest of the world’s oil and gas majors, including US giant ExxonMobil and Austria’s OMV Petrom»

Al momento attuale la Romania consuma 11 – 12 bcm, billion cubic meter, di gas naturale, producendone10.5 bcm: è praticamente autosufficiente.

Detto con parole che non si dovremmo dire, non è più ricattabile energeticamente.»

*

L’unica arma rimasta nelle mani dell’attuale eurodirigenza uscente per garantirsi una fetta cospicua dei proventi petroliferi rumeni era il controllo della magistratura rumena, i cui giudici liberal si davano un gran da fare per eliminare gli oppositori.

I rumeni reagirono sia con una riforma della giustizia sia silurando la trentenne Laura Kövesi, procuratore capo in Romania ma fatta nominare da Juncker. La Commissione Europea allora cercò di imporre la Kövesi come procuratrice dell’Unione Europea, nonostante che il Consiglio Europeo avesse bocciato la sua candidatura. A questo punto i rumeni la fecero arrestare ed il progetto di Mr Juncker abortì.

Affaire Kövesi. Financial Times così furibondo da pubblicare senza blocchi.

* * *

Di questi giorni l’ultima notizia in merito.

I senatori rumeni hanno approvato una legge che abbrevia i termini di prescrizione dei reati. Essere sospettati non significa essere colpevoli, ma comparire davanti ad un giudice liberal significa sicuramente essere condannati per motivi ideologici.

Stiamo vivendo gli ultimi guizzi di una Commissione Europea uscente di mandato.

Il 26 maggio si andrà alle urne.

Nessuno si aspetti mutazioni epocali, ma se non altro questa Commissione Europea dovrebbe scomparire.

*


EU Observer. 2019-04-19. Romania defies EU on rule of law

Romanian senators have backed a law that will let several high level corruption suspects off the hook by shortening the statute of limitations of crimes, in defiance of EU concern on “systemic” abuse of rule of law in the member state, which currently holds the EU presidency. Romanian prime minister Viorica Dancila also pledged to “finalise” other controversial changes, despite European Commission warnings Bucharest could face an EU sanctions procedure.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Kansas. Corte Appello federale. È una sentenza non una barzelletta.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-20.

Gufo_011__

Quanto segue non è una barzelletta.

*

«The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case next term concerning Kansas’ prosecution of three undocumented immigrants for using stolen Social Security numbers in an effort to gain employment»

*

«Those convictions were overturned when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the federal immigration law at issue preempts a state from prosecuting undocumented immigrants, when the basis of the claim comes from information that has been culled from federal immigration forms.»

*

«The case raises the question about the extent to which federal immigration law preempts states from also trying to enforce immigration law.»

*

«Now that the court has taken up the case, if it “overturns the Kansas court’s decision, all states could prosecute non-citizens for identity theft more easily»

*

«The Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the state from using information to prosecute individuals if the information is on the federal I-9 form, even though the state did not use the I-9 form to gather the information for the criminal prosecutions»

*

«In Kansas, however, three immigrants were caught using other individuals’ Social Security numbers in order to obtain employment. »

* * * * * * * *

Il cuore del ragionamento è riassumibile in una frase:

«federal immigration law pre-empts the state from enforcing state criminal law»

ossia, che la legge federale sull’immigrazione impedisce allo stato di applicare il diritto penale statale, che si applica solo ai cittadini.

In parole miserrime: il codice penale deve essere applicato ai cittadini, ma non ai migranti senza documenti, che non siano cittadini.

È una tesi davvero stuzzicante.

Orbene: se un immigrato clandestino assassinasse Mrs Clinton, sarebbe o meno imputabile, sarebbe o meno processabile?

Secondo questa tesi, si direbbe proprio di no.

La  imputabilità e la processabilità è legata alla cittadinanza, non alla qualità del reato.


Cnn. 2019-04-15. Supreme Court will take up immigration-related case next term

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case next term concerning Kansas’ prosecution of three undocumented immigrants for using stolen Social Security numbers in an effort to gain employment.

Those convictions were overturned when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the federal immigration law at issue preempts a state from prosecuting undocumented immigrants, when the basis of the claim comes from information that has been culled from federal immigration forms.

The case raises the question about the extent to which federal immigration law preempts states from also trying to enforce immigration law.

Now that the court has taken up the case, if it “overturns the Kansas court’s decision, all states could prosecute non-citizens for identity theft more easily,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School said.

“The Supreme Court largely struck down Arizona’s similar efforts in 2012,” Yale- Loehr said, “given the change in Supreme Court members since then, it will be interesting to see how the court revisits the issue.”

The Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts the state from using information to prosecute individuals if the information is on the federal I-9 form, even though the state did not use the I-9 form to gather the information for the criminal prosecutions.

At issue is a federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which makes it illegal to employ unauthorized immigrants and establishes an employment verification system for employers. As a part of the hiring process, employees are required to fill out federal forms with their information.

In Kansas, however, three immigrants were caught using other individuals’ Social Security numbers in order to obtain employment. They were prosecuted under state law.

The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three individuals for crimes like identity theft, holding that federal immigration law pre-empts the state from enforcing state criminal law.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Corte Appello del 9th Circuit sentenzia costituzionale l’operato di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-16.

Pollo allo Spiedo

In America è in corso una guerra civile che si combatte all’ultimo sangue.

Il terreno di scontro è la composizione delle Corti Federali di Appello, i giudici delle quali sono di nomina presidenziale ma devono essere approvate dal senato, con diverse modalità a seconda del grado. Al momento attuale, gran parte di queste Corti è composta da giudici liberal democratici, ed emette sentenze di conseguenza.

Questo potere giudiziario ha la potestà di annullare le decisioni presidenziali, anche se in via transitoria, perché poi la Corte Suprema ristabilisce lo stato di diritto. Ma quanto sia interesse di Mr Trump di prendere il controllo delle Corti Federali è fuori discussione: è semplicemente evidente.

Mr Trump ha avviato un lavoro sottile ma deciso di nomine di giudici, per riequilibrare la situazione. È già riuscito a far nominare Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh nella Corte Suprema, ed ha già ribaltato la composizione della Corte di Appello del 3th Circuit. Il lavoro prosegue operoso anche nei confronti del 9th Circuit, ove i liberal democratici avevano una schiacciante maggioranza.

White House plans to send 50 judicial nominees to new Congress

White House names 3 nominees for 9th Circuit after conservative attacks

«After a day of attacks from commentators on the right, the White House announced Wednesday night that it planned to nominate three judges for the California seats on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The left-leaning 9th Circuit has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump, but when the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress, those who had been previously nominated for the 9th Circuit weren’t on the list.»

*

White House nominations to 9th Circuit set off firestorm

«While President Donald Trump has had unprecedented success in reshaping the judiciary by placing two justices on the Supreme Court and a record breaking 29 judges on federal appeals courts, he believes he has been stymied by what he considers the liberal bent of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s a powerful court headquartered in San Francisco that has jurisdiction over nine West Coast states and two territories. ….

….

Now the President is taking the gloves off, hoping to eventually flip that court.»

* * *

In una sintesi supersemplificata, Mr Trump sta sia nominando ai posti vacanti nel 9th Circuit dei giudici repubblicani, sia sta tentando un colpo che, se riuscisse, sarebbe magistrale.

«the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress»

A soldoni: i giudici nominati dalla pregressa Amministrazione Obama senza audizione in Senato potrebbero essere rimpiazzati.

* * * * * * *

I giudici liberal democratici del 9th Circuit stanno sentendo già le mani di Mr Trump attorno alla loro gola.

Se Mr Trump riuscisse nel suo piano, l’intero sistema delle Corti di Appello Federale finirebbe in mano ai repubblicani, che si assicurerebbero il governo per molte decine di anni.

Il coltello alla gola, ed in mano ad uno che lo sa usare, ha determinato un ribaltone insperato ed insperabile nei Giudici del 9th Circuit.

*


Il The New York Times ha tenuto questa notizia in evidenza per ventitre minuti, poi la ha rimossa disperdendola nell’ambiente.

«A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.»

*

«A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.»

*

«The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings»

*

«On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws»

*

«Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” …. On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay»

*

«In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.»

* * * * * * *

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions» [Reuters]

*

La maggioranza dei giudici della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito sono in grande maggioranza liberal democratici. La cosa non sarebbe fastidio a nessuno se codesti giudici non fossero prima liberal democratici e dopo, solo dopo, anche giudici che applicano le leggi in ossequio alla Costituzione.

«At the end of 2016, the court was authorized 29 judgeships, with four of those seats vacant. Of those 25, 18 were appointees of Democratic presidents and seven were appointees of Republicans. Currently, there are six vacancies. Sixteen judges are appointees of Democratic presidents and seven are appointees of Republican presidents.»

Come correttamente fa notare Reuters:

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions»

Quando poi la causa è portata davanti la Suprema Corte, invariabilmente, con deprimente regolarità, l’augusto consesso annulla la sentenza emessa dai giudici del Nono Circuito.

Ma sono passati dei mesi di blocco dell’attività governativa, e tutti i media controllati dai liberal democratici sbandierano quella sentenza come se fosse definitiva.

Se è vero che la politica non dovrebbe interferire con i procedimenti giudiziari, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare che i poteri giudiziari non dovrebbero interferire con la politica. Nel caso in oggetto, bloccare in tutta la Unione gli atti governativi dell’Amministrazione Trump con argomenti così speciosi da lasciare perplessi anche gli studenti di una scuola di giurisprudenza (sono parole della Suprema Corte).

* * * * * * *

Adesso le cose sembrerebbero essere cambiate.

Judge Seeborg aveva emesso una sentenza che pareva un manifesto politico, privo di un ubi consistat giuridico: si era allargato fin troppo. Fino al punto che persino la Corte di Appello Federale del Nono Circuito ha rigettato quella sentenza emessa. E si pensi che il tutto si è consumato in meno di una settimana ….


The New York Times. 2019-04-13. Rule Keeping Asylum Seekers in Mexico Can Temporarily Proceed, Court Says

Migrants seeking asylum at the United States’ southwestern border have to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are decided, under a Trump administration policy that was temporarily allowed to remain in effect Friday.

*

A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.

The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings.

On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws.

Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.”

On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay.

In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.

The Justice Department, which appealed Judge Seeborg’s decision, argued that the injunction would “impose immediate, substantial harm on the United States, including by diminishing the executive branch’s ability to work effectively with Mexico to manage the crisis on our shared border.”

The Ninth Circuit will consider next week whether to keep the stay — and Mr. Trump’s protocols — in place during the appeal.

Judy Rabinovitz, the deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said she expected that decision to come next week.

“The question will be, can the government continue to implement the policy while it appeals it to the Ninth Circuit,” she said. “Obviously, we don’t think it should be able to.”

She called the policy unlawful and cruel.

“We think it should be stopped,” she said.

Lawyers for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appeals court’s decision comes as the nation’s immigration system may have reached a breaking point as migrants increasingly arrive at the country’s southwestern border with Mexico.

The flow of migrant families has reached record levels, with February totals 560 percent above those for the same period last year. Many are seeking asylum, in which they have the burden to show evidence of past persecution or testimony that establishes the “well-founded” fear that they would face danger if they return home.

The Trump administration’s migration protection protocols were an attempt to deter migrants. Mexico’s government reluctantly agreed to house the migrants in December.

*


The New York Times. 2018-12-20. U.S. Will Send Migrants Back to Mexico as They Wait on Asylum Claims

The Trump administration announced a new migration policy Thursday that will require asylum seekers who cross the Mexican border illegally to return to Mexico while their cases are decided.

The United States has been trying for months to get Mexico’s leaders to agree to house those migrants, and on Thursday Mexico’s new government reluctantly agreed.

The American secretary of homeland security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, said the move would prevent people from using the asylum process as a way of slipping into the United States and remaining in the country illegally.

“Today we are announcing historic measures to bring the illegal immigration crisis under control,” she said. “Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.”

In a statement, she said, “‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’”

The new policy, announced as the president and Congress were at odds over funding for a border wall, amounts to the boldest effort yet by the Trump administration to discourage people from seeking refuge in the United States. It follows a series of other curbs that had been introduced, including the separation of migrant families, which was later reversed in an executive order after a public outcry.

The migrant issue has put considerable pressure on the United States’ relationship with Mexico as Trump administration restrictions have left thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Mexican border towns, overwhelming local shelters and resources.

The new policy would also alleviate pressure on American border agents, who for months have argued that they are overwhelmed by the record-breaking number of migrant families seeking asylum.

Mexican officials say they were told of the latest American decision on Thursday morning in letters from the Department of Homeland Security and the United States chargé d’affaires in Mexico, John S. Creamer. The letters stated that the returns would begin immediately under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry has essentially agreed to accept the decision by the United States, and will be forced to house thousands of people from other countries, particularly from Central America, as they await their asylum decisions.

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Roberto Velasco, said the move did not represent an agreement between the two countries, but rather “a unilateral move by the United States that we have to respond to.”

Mr. Velasco said the rules would apply only to new asylum applicants, not to individuals who have already entered the United States with processes underway. The United States did not initially make clear if the policy applied only to new applicants.

The administration’s move is a sharp departure from decades of American asylum practice, according to legal experts and advocates. The United States has long accepted individuals from across the world fleeing harm or persecution in their home countries.

The program is almost certain to be challenged in the United States courts by human rights groups and advocates. Many have already claimed that sending persecuted individuals to Mexico, one of the most violent countries in the world, places them in harm’s way.

“This deal is a stark violation of international law, flies in the face of U.S. laws passed by Congress, and is a callous response to the families and individuals running for their lives,” said Margaret Huang, the executive director of Amnesty International.

While the individuals would be allowed to return to the United States for court hearings, they would remain in Mexico under a humanitarian visa until their process is completed.

Mexico’s decision to accept the asylum seekers is likely to be seen as a capitulation by the new government to President Trump, who proclaimed over Twitter two weeks ago that Mexico would house asylum applicants to the United States on its soil.

The decision to turn Mexico into a waiting room for migrants seeking entry to the United States is likely to stir anger in Mexico.

Mexico has found itself in the center of Mr. Trump’s ire over migration policy, with the American president lambasting the country for not doing enough to inhibit the passage of Central Americans and others through its territory.

But while Mr. Trump has proposed building walls along the border, Mexico’s new president. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has taken a different approach.

He and his foreign minister announced a new development plan for southern Mexico and Central America that would require some $30 billion in aid to address the root causes of the migration.

This week, the United States applauded the proposal, and promised to work with the Mexicans to realize that plan with more than $5 billion. But that money did not reflect a new commitment of funds — for the most part, the United States government was already spending it in the region.

“This is total capitulation in exchange for the fig leaf of a nonexistent development plan with no financial commitments by the U.S. and no timetable,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former Mexican foreign minister.

Shelters for asylum seekers in Mexico have already been overwhelmed by people who would previously have been quickly processed into the United States, but now have to wait weeks or months to be allowed in under curbs put in place by the Trump administration.

As with many of the administration’s harshest immigration plans that have been introduced with little notice, it was unclear on Thursday how exactly the new policy would be carried out.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the announcement on Thursday came as a surprise to many people in the agency’s leadership, as well as the rank and file who would be charged with carrying it out.