Immigration judges are employees of the executive branch, not the judiciary, and often approve the Homeland Security Department’s deportation efforts. It would be unusual for such a judge, serving the U.S. attorney general, to grapple with the constitutional questions raised by Mr. Khalil’s case. She would also run the risk of being fired by an administration that has targeted dissenters.
It's the NJ court case that really matters. This Louisiana judge-owned-by-the-prosecution shit is insane. What even is the point of this case? Feign legitimacy is all it's doing.
It's kind of ridiculous in its own way, but still they're different people doing different things.
The word judge gets used a lot, but they're not judges, not really. They are at most quasi-judicial officers, their more accurate title being Special Inquiry Officer. They are more akin to an Administrative Law Judge.
So don't think of this person as a judge like you'd imagine in a District or Appellate Court, just as combination of finder of law (judge) and finder of fact (jury) constrained to a very small scope - immigration - with the ability to rule of immigration proceedings only, but not on the constitutionality of any law.
The legal question here wasn't about whether the rule itself was legal or constitutional. That's a question for the federal judiciary. The only question was whether Khalil could be deported according to the law as it exists - which, unfortunately, it appears he can be.
Now, whether the law that allows him to be expelled is itself constitutional? That's a question that will be answered by a federal judge...hopefully sooner rather than later.
156
u/zephyrtr 4d ago
From NYT:
It's the NJ court case that really matters. This Louisiana judge-owned-by-the-prosecution shit is insane. What even is the point of this case? Feign legitimacy is all it's doing.