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 v
iola
ted their First Amendment rights to access the hearings.
Shortly
after the Septem
b
er 11th attacks, Chief Immigration Judge
Michael
Creppy issued a directive ordering immigration judges to close to the pu
b
lic some immigration hearings. INS officials
b
egan 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
b
enefits the pu
b
lic. The Circuit Court of Appeals found that deportation hearings d
o n
ot pass the experience and logic test
b
ecause deportation proceedings d
o n
ot present the type of un
b
roken, uncontradicted history that the test requires to esta
b
lish a First Amendment right of access. Holding that there is no First Amendment
right of access, the court did not decide on the
b
roadness 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
b
etween 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 v
iola
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and another charging her with selling drug samples, a
v
iola
tion of 21 U.S.C. § § 353(c)(1) and 333(
b
)1(B). Though sentencing guidelines called for
b
etween 11 and 14 years, she was sentenced to three years in prison
b
ecause of dimi
nish
ed mental capacity.
The
INS initiated removal proceeding
b
ecause 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
b
ecause she is Jewish. However, the INA section does not apply if the Attorney
General decides that the alien, having
b
een convicted
b
y a f
ina
l 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 remova
b
le
b
ecause she committed an aggravated felony.
The
BIA did not dete
rm
ine whether Steinhouse was a danger to the community, the factor that the
District Court found to be most important. The court ruled that dete
rm
ining whether a crime is particularly serious depends upon an exam
ina
tion 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
b
e a danger to the community. Matter of Frentescu, 1982, I&N Dec. 244, 247 (BIA
1982). The case was remanded to the BIA to dete
rm
ine whether Steinhouse’s crime was particularly serious, applying the correct
set of Frentescu factors in totality.
