On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order, which among other things, bars individuals from seven named countries with significant Muslim populations from entering the United States. Over the past week, President Trump has made statements to the effect that the courts, in exercise of their duties and obligations under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, are interfering with national security while a challenge to his Executive Order is sub judice. The President has further stated that the judges hearing his challenges to his Executive Order are influenced by ‘politics’ or ‘political views’ and that recent proceedings on the issue and that recent proceedings on the issue before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were ‘disgraceful.’ In addition, the President referred to one judge, the Honorable James Robart, a United States District Court Judge in the Western District of Washington, as a ‘so-called’ judge. These statements are ill-considered, are without any evidentiary support, and are destructive of our society and system of law.
For the full text of the statement, click on the link in the title.
Take These Precautions Before Trump Takes Office
Take These Precautions Before Trump Takes Office
Our LGBT Committee Co-Chair Glenn Magpantay has been featured in The Huffington Post, giving advice about precautions to take before Trump takes office. As always, we thank him for his expert advice and the great work he does with the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance. He touches on immigration, Obamacare, same-sex marriage and more in this article.
There are a number of measures that LGBT Asian Americans, South Asians, Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders should do to protect themselves and their families under a Trump Administration. I’m a civil rights lawyer by practice and I’ve consulted with other immigration attorneys, public policy experts, and other practitioners to identify issues of particular importance for our community.
Many of these applications will not be granted until after Trump takes office. But even if Trump tries to eliminate everything that we have won, it is virtually impossible for changes to be retroactive. Applications filed today will be decided and granted on the basis of the laws and rules while Obama is in office. So take care of these soon.
Click on the link in the title to read the full article.
The Problem With Calling Out Judges for Their Race
The Problem With Calling Out Judges for Their Race
In a June 5 article in the Atlantic by Garrett Epps, who teaches constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore, the author commented on the controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s criticism of Judge Curiel because of his race by citing the 1998 case of Macdraw Inc. v. CIT Equipment Financing. That case is notable for the fact that the Hon. Denny Chin, then the only Article III United States District Judge east of the Mississippi, presided over it.
In response to an unfavorable decision against the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel filed a brief in which they questioned Judge Chin’s impartiality on account of his race. Responding to this point, Judge Chin wrote: “This sentiment is absurd and demeans me individually and the Court as a whole.” He then sanctioned plaintiff’s attorneys by requiring them to withdraw from the case and banning them from appearing before him in any future matter. He also directed the court clerk to report this sanction to every court in which plaintiff’s attorneys held bar membership.
On appeal to the Second Circuit, Judge Chin’s ruling was upheld in strong terms. Chief Judge Ralph Winter wrote: “Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality.”
The article goes on to cite the case of the Vietnamese Fishermen against the Ku Klux Klan, without realizing that this latest AABANY Trial Reenactment was led by Judge Chin. In that case, the Ku Klux Klan sought to disqualify Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, the first African American appointed to the Federal bench in Texas, on the grounds that she would not be impartial in a case in which the Ku Klux Klan was the defendant. Judge McDonald denied the motion from the bench, stating: “You are not entitled to a judge of your choice. You are entitled to a judge who will give you a fair trial. I am deeply committed to equal justice under the law and you will get it. You are entitled to nothing more and nothing less.”
In the three decades since the Vietnamese Fishermen case, we are still confronting race-based attacks against judges, which is indeed a sad state of affairs. We thank Judge Chin for standing up against this type of racism back in 1998 and for his continuing to teach all of us that these kinds of attacks against judges and the judiciary are improper, inappropriate and intolerable.
To read the full article, click the link in the title.
To learn more about the Vietnamese Fishermen trial reenactment, click here. For more information about the AABANY Trial Reenactments click here.
Organizational Statement | NAPABA Denounces Donald Trump’s Racist Attacks on Judges
Organizational Statement
For Immediate Release
June 7, 2016
For More Information, Contact:
Brett Schuster, Communications Manager
[email protected], 202-775-9555
NAPABA Denounces Donald Trump’s Racist Attacks on Judges
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) denounces Donald Trump’s recent remarks accusing Judge Gonzalo Curiel of partiality because he is of Mexican descent. Judge Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrant parents, currently serves on the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. Mr. Trump has claimed that Judge Curiel should be disqualified from adjudicating a case to which Mr. Trump is a party because Judge Curiel is “Mexican” and because Mr. Trump believes that his support of the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border creates “an inherent conflict of interest” with the judge. Mr. Trump later expanded his position to include Muslim judges, whom Mr. Trump believes would be unable to preside fairly over cases to which he is a party because of his public policy positions.
Judges should not be accused of unfair bias because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. When Donald Trump questions the independence, fairness, and impartiality of a judge simply because he is the son of immigrants or adheres to a particular religion, he sends a strong message to the American people against diversity in the judiciary and he undermines public trust in the rule of law.
“NAPABA has never endorsed a Presidential candidate, and does not intend to do so this year,” said NAPABA President Jin Y. Hwang. “We speak out against Donald Trump because his remarks calling into question the ability of judges to be fair and impartial based on their ethnic background or religion are contemptible. This critique is not about politics — it is about fundamental respect for the judicial branch and those who serve in it. The fact that the comments came from a Presidential campaign podium only serves to make the comments even more disturbing — and dangerous.”
Unfortunately, similar charges have been made against respected Asian Pacific American jurists. In MacDraw Inc. v. CIT Group Equipment Financing Inc., 138 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1998), lawyers criticized Judge Denny Chin for alleged bias due to his ethnicity. Fortunately, the reviewing court condemned the charges and Chief Judge Ralph Winter of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — one of the most respected jurists ever appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan — made clear that the race of a judge is an impermissible basis for attacking a judge’s impartiality, and even went so far as to approve sanctions against the attorneys by forbidding them from ever appearing again in federal court in New York.
As the national representative of Asian Pacific American lawyers and judges, NAPABA strongly rejects the notion that judges of diverse backgrounds are unable to fulfill their Constitutional duties in a fair and impartial manner. Asian Pacific American judges from varied and different backgrounds ably serve as fair and impartial jurists who are dedicated to the fair application of the rule of law in the United States and they should not be subjected to speculative and unfounded attacks based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.
For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at202-775-9555 or [email protected].
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of approximately 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government.
NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.
To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).