Duke Law Journal Volume 58 May 2009

posted by Duke Law Journal

Volume 58 May 2009 Number 8

Articles

Pitfalls of Empirical Studies that Attempt to Understand the Factors Affecting Appellate Decisionmaking

Hon. Harry T. Edwards & Michael A. Livermore

A More Perfect System: The 2002 Reforms of the Board of Immigration Appeals

John D. Ashcroft & Kris W. Kobach

The NLRB in Administrative Law Exile: Problems with Its Structure and Function and Suggestions for Reform

Catherine L. Fisk & Deborah C. Malamud

Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward

Daniel Richman

Federalism Accountability: “Agency-Forcing” Measures

Catherine M. Sharkey

Depoliticizing Administrative Law

Cass R. Sunstein & Thomas J. Miles

The Parliament of the Experts

Adrian Vermeule

Administration of War

John Yoo

Comment

Comment on Professor Yoo, Administration of War

Richard H. Kohn

Retrieve All Pieces

July 5, 2009 at 10:26 am Posted in: Administrative Law, Law Rev (Duke) Print This Post

Responses (1)

anon - July 7, 2009 at 8:22 am

As for John Ashcroft and the Board of Immigration Appeals, I refer folks to the DOJ IG report:

The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs [immigration judges], which are Schedule A career positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were systematic in nature. The evidence demonstrates further that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in selecting candidates for the BIA.

In an e-mail on October 8, 2003, Sampson outlined a new process for hiring IJs that listed the White House as the sole source for generating candidates. We found that Sampson’s process, which treated the appointments like political appointments, was implemented in the spring of 2004. Sampson acknowledged that “in the sense that names were solicited from the… White House offices that were involved in political hiring, [we] were only considering essentially Republican lawyers for appointment.” Scott Jennings, who worked at the White House Office of Political Affairs, confirmed that IJ appointments were “treated like other political appointments,” that the White House’s sources for candidates were all Republican, and that candidates were screened for their “political qualifications.” Consequently, Sampson’s process – used and refined by Williams and then by Goodling – created a pool of candidates who had been selected because of their political or ideological affiliations.

As implemented by Sampson, and followed by Williams and Goodling through the end of 2006, the Attorney General’s Office controlled the process for selecting IJs, soliciting candidates, and informing EOIR who was to be hired for each position. Sampson delegated responsibility for IJ hiring when he did not exercise it himself to the Department’s White House Liaison (Williams and then Goodling), whose principal responsibilities involved the screening and hiring of political appointees.

Search

Our Podcast

Posts by Author

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments

Duke Law Journal Volume 58 May 2009

posted by Duke Law Journal

Responses (1)

Leave a Reply

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Kaimipono Wenger

Dave Hoffman

Nate Oman

Frank Pasquale

Deven Desai

Danielle Citron

Lawrence Cunningham

Sarah Waldeck

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Solangel Maldonado

Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Previous Guests

Blogroll