North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft
Appeal to the Supreme court from 3rd District Court of Appeals.
In this case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the federal government allowing immigration proceedings to be held in secret for certain individuals whose cases are classified as being of “special interest.” The rationale for secret hearings is that the individuals may have links to terrorism that threaten national security. News organizations sued the federal government arguing that closing the proceedings violated their First Amendment rights to access the hearings.
Shortly after the September 11th attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a directive ordering immigration judges to close to the public some immigration hearings. INS officials began targeting and arresting Middle Easterners who had overstayed their visas. Some of their cases were classified as of “special interest” and their hearings were closed to the public, including the media. The District Court ruled in favor of the media organizations and issued a nationwide order enjoining the Attorney General from denying access.
The court used a test of experience and logic test to determine whether there is a First Amendment right of access. The judges noted that there is a history of openness throughout deportation proceedings and that such openness generally benefits the public. The Circuit Court of Appeals found that deportation hearings do not pass the experience and logic test because deportation proceedings do not present the type of unbroken, uncontradicted history that the test requires to establish a First Amendment right of access. Holding that there is no First Amendment right of access, the court did not decide on the broadness of the injunction or whether the Creppy directive’s closures would pass a strict scrutiny analysis.
The Third Circuit’s decision runs counter to an opinion issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last August. In Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, the Sixth Circuit that the government could not close immigration hearings to the public. The federal government did not appeal the decision of the Sixth Circuit. North Jersey Media Group and The New Jersey Law Journal have filed a petition requesting that the United States Supreme Court review the decision. The conflict between the two courts increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will here the case.
***
Natawadee Steinhouse v. John Ashcroft
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
In 1998, Natawadee Steinhouse pled guilty to count one of an indictment charging her with racketeering, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and another charging her with selling drug samples, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 353(c)(1) and 333(b)1(B). Though sentencing guidelines called for between 11 and 14 years, she was sentenced to three years in prison because of diminished mental capacity.
The INS initiated removal proceeding because Steinhouse had committed an aggravated felony. In 2000, an Immigration Judge ordered her removed the United States to Thailand. She applied for withholding under INA section 241(b)(3) on the grounds that she would face religious persecution in Thailand because she is Jewish. However, the INA section does not apply if the Attorney General decides that the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particular serious crime, is a danger to the community of the United States. The IJ precluded her from seeking withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the IJ that the crime was particularly serious, and therefore concluded that Steinhouse was removable because she committed an aggravated felony.
The BIA did not determine whether Steinhouse was a danger to the community, the factor that the District Court found to be most important. The court ruled that determining whether a crime is particularly serious depends upon an examination of the nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction, and whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will be a danger to the community. Matter of Frentescu, 1982, I&N Dec. 244, 247 (BIA 1982). The case was remanded to the BIA to determine whether Steinhouse’s crime was particularly serious, applying the correct set of Frentescu factors in totality.
