#U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 8 months

Text

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled yesterday that portions of Texas Senate Bill 1, adopted in September 2021, violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found that parts of S.B. 1 require officials to reject mail-in ballot applications and mail-in ballots based on errors or omissions that are not material in determining whether voters are qualified under Texas law to vote or cast a mail ballot.

“The District Court’s decision affirms what the Justice Department has argued for nearly two years: these provisions of Texas Senate Bill 1 unlawfully restrict the ability of eligible Texas voters to vote by mail and to have that vote counted,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The Justice Department will continue to defend against unlawful efforts that undermine the right to vote and restrict participation in our democracy.”

“In requiring rejection of mail ballots and mail ballot applications from eligible voters based on minor paperwork errors or omissions, Texas Senate Bill 1 violates the Civil Rights Act,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This ruling sends a clear message that states may not impose unlawful and unnecessary requirements that disenfranchise eligible voters seeking to participate in our democracy. The Justice Department will continue to use every available tool to protect all Americans’ right to vote and to ensure that their voices are heard.”

“The right to vote is one of the fundamental rights in our democracy,” said U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza for the Western District of Texas. “This important ruling protects the rights of eligible Texas voters to cast a vote and have it counted consistent with federal law.”

The court issued a preliminary ruling yesterday in favor of the United States’ motion for summary judgment, which asserts that two provisions of S.B. 1 violate Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act by requiring rejection of mail ballots and mail ballot request forms because of paperwork errors that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot. The first provision requires that early voting clerks “shall reject” mail ballot applications that do not include a Texas driver’s license or ID number that identifies “the same voter identified on the applicant’s application for voter registration.” The second provision provides that a mail ballot “may be accepted only if” the ID numbers on the carrier envelope or signature sheet identifies “the same voter identified on the applicant’s application for voter registration.”

Section 5.07 requires that early voting clerks “shall reject” mail ballot applications that do not include a Department of Public Safety (DPS) number or the last four digits of a Social Security Number (SSN) that identifies “the same voter identified on the applicant’s application for voter registration.” Section 5.13 provides that a mail ballot “may be accepted only if” the DPS number or last four digits of an SSN on the carrier envelope or signature sheet identifies “the same voter identified on the applicant’s application for voter registration.”

The United States presented evidence to the court that S.B. 1 has resulted in Texas election officials rejecting tens of thousands of mail ballot applications and mail ballots cast in elections since the bill was enacted in 2021. The Department asserts that these rejections violate federal law, denying Texas voters the statutory right to vote protected by Section 101.

Yesterday’s preliminary ruling from the court grants the Justice Department’s motion for summary judgment, which the Department filed in May 2023, in its entirety. The decision addresses the Justice Department’s sole pending claim in La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, No. 5:21-cv-844 (WDTX), a case in which the United States and several private parties are challenging various aspects of S.B. 1. The court noted that the ruling will be followed in the coming weeks by a final written opinion and order. A group of private plaintiffs will be going to trial on the remaining claims in the case, which have not yet been resolved. That trial is scheduled to begin on Sept. 11.

Complaints about discriminatory practices may be reported to the Civil Rights Division through its internet reporting portal at www.civilrights.justice.gov or by calling (800) 253-3931.

Additional information about the Civil Rights Division’s work to uphold and protect the voting rights of all Americans is available on the Justice Department’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section.

#us politics #news #department of justice #office of public affairs #2023 #texas #biden administration #U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas #Texas Senate Bill 1 #Civil Rights Act of 1964 #merrick garland #Kristen Clarke #Civil Rights Division #Jaime Esparza #vote by mail #mail in ballots #La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott

29 notes · View notes

officialyourdailyinspiration · 18 days

Text

A federal district court has ruled favorably for religious freedom in declaring moot a case over the right of pharmacies’ not to stock and dispense abortion drugs.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled on April 5 that the legal case the state of Texas and Mayo Pharmacy, Inc., had made against the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was now moot due to a revision of the original guidance issued by HHS’ Office of Civil Rights. In 2022, HHS’ guidance seemed to trample on the conscience rights of pharmacists, but it later made changes to that guidance and denied that it had…

12 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 5 months

Text

AUSTIN, Texas - A federal judge handed down a sentence for the man who set an Austin synagogue on fire two years ago.

Members of Congregation Beth Israel looked on as Franklin Sechriest was sentenced to 10 years for setting fire to their synagogue on Halloween 2021. Sechriest pleaded guilty to federal arson and hate crime charges in April.

"The staff, as well as members of the congregation, have been living with this for two years. And we're still living with it because the sanctuary is still not usable. There's still yellow tape across the doors and the doors are still burned," said Senior Rabbi Steven Folberg. "But I think that for myself and for some of us, there is a sense of relief that we can move forward, that this piece of this is done, and that we don't have to keep revisiting it and revisiting it in the same way that we have."

In the courtroom, Sechriest could be seen throughout the morning looking back at his parents and mouthing, "I’m sorry."

He apologized to the court as well, saying, "I will never forgive myself." He also promised to continue to "atone" for his actions and denounce the "evil ideology."

According to his defense attorney, that ideology was the result of indoctrination by online hate groups that Sechriest had stumbled upon while seeking community during COVID.

His defense attorney also asked for leniency due to Secriest’s diagnosed medical issues, which include Autism and OCD.

"I don't think that any of those issues had anything to do with what he did," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Devlin after the sentencing. "He made voluntary choices. He made intelligent choices on his end, and he engaged in a lot of premeditation, a lot of planning, and it was very deliberate."

The judge ultimately agreed though he expressed empathy toward those struggling with mental health and their parents.

"There is nothing more that you could have done," said Judge David Ezra, addressing Sechriest's parents. "It wasn’t your fault."

However, Judge Ezra said the biggest factor in his decision was the danger he felt Sechriest could be to others going forward.

"We applaud the decision to sentence the Congregation Beth Israel arsonist to 10 years in prison," said Jackie Nirenberg, regional director for ADL Austin, in a statement shared with FOX 7. "We are grateful to the FBI San Antonio office and the Austin Fire Department for their thorough investigation into the incident, and the prosecutors from the US Attorney's Western District of Texas office for sending a message that hate and antisemitism will not be tolerated in our community."

Sechriest is not eligible for parole and will have three years of supervised release after he completes his sentence. The judge is also going to recommend that Sechriest be committed to a federal medical facility.

#nunyas news

12 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 9 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 21, 2023 (Friday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 22, 2023

On June 8 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a lower court blocking the congressional districting map Alabama put into place after the 2020 census, agreeing that the map likely violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act and ordering Alabama to redraw the map to include two majority-Black congressional districts.

Today the Alabama legislature passed a new congressional map that openly violates the Supreme Court’s order. By a vote of 75–28 in the House and 24–6 in the Senate, the legislature approved a map that includes only one Black-majority district.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and many of the other members of Alabama’s congressional delegation had spoken to the Republicans in the state legislature about the map. Editor of the Alabama Reflector Brian Lyman reported that the map’s sponsor said he had spoken to House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) too: “It was quite simple,” the sponsor said. McCarthy “said ‘I’m interested in keeping my majority.’ That was basically his conversation.”

Alabama governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed the bill into law.

Today, assistant U.S. attorney general Todd Kim and U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas Jaime Esparza wrote to Texas governor Greg Abbott and Texas interim attorney general Angela Colmenero warning that the actions of Texas in constructing a barrier in the Rio Grande between the U.S. and Mexico “violate federal law, raise humanitarian concerns, present serious risks to public safety and the environment, and may interfere with the federal government’s ability to carry out its official duties.”

The floating barrier violates the Rivers and Harbors Act, which prohibits the construction of any obstructions to navigation in U.S. waters and requires permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before constructing any structure in such waters. Abbott ignored that law to construct a barrier that includes inflatable buoys and razor wire.

Mexico has also noted that barrier buoys that block the flow of water violate treaties between the U.S. and Mexico dating from 1944 and 1970, and has asked for the barriers to be removed. So has the owner of a Texas canoe and kayaking company, who says the buoys prevent him from conducting his business. And so have more than 80 House Democrats, who have noted Abbott’s “complete disregard for federal authority over immigration enforcement.”

Unless Texas promises by 2:00 Tuesday afternoon to remove the barrier immediately, the U.S. will sue.

Abbott has made fear of immigration central to his political messaging. He is now faced with the reality that Biden’s parole process for migrants at the southern border has dropped unlawful entries by almost 70% since it went into effect in early May, meaning that border agents have more time to patrol and are making it harder to enter the U.S. unlawfully.

Abbott’s barrier seems designed to keep his messaging amped up, accompanied as it is by allegations that troops from the National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety have been ordered to push migrants, including children, back into the river and to withhold water from those suffering in the heat. There are also reports that migrants have been hurt by razor wire installed along the barrier.

Abbott responded to the DOJ’s letter: “I’ll see you in court, Mr. President.”

Yesterday, on the same day that Shawn Boburg, Emma Brown, and Ann E. Marimow added to all the recent stories of Supreme Court corruption an exclusive story showing how then-leader of the Federalist Society Leonard Leo funded a “a coordinated and sophisticated public relations campaign to defend and celebrate” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance a bill that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a binding code of ethics.

“We wouldn’t tolerate this [behavior] from a city council member or an alderman," committee chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) said. “It falls short of ethical standards we expect of any public servant in America. And yet the Supreme Court won't even acknowledge it’s a problem.” “The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act,” Durbin said, “would bring the Supreme Court Justices’ ethics requirement in line with every other federal judge and restore confidence in the Court.”

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) disagreed that Congress could force the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code. “This is an unseemly effort by the Democratic left to destroy the legitimacy of the Roberts court,” he said, although he agreed that the justices need “to get their house in order.”

Today, Dahlia Lithwick and Anat Shenker-Osorio noted in Slate that voters of both parties strongly support cleaning up the Supreme Court.

As signs of an indictment for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election grow stronger, Trump has taken to threats. When asked about incarceration, Trump said earlier this week: “I think it’s a very dangerous thing to even talk about, because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters, much more passion than they had in 2020 and much more passion than they had in 2016. I think it would be very dangerous.”

His loyalists are working to undermine the law enforcement agencies that are supporting the rule of law. On July 11, 2023, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to chair of the Committee on Appropriations Kay Granger (R-TX) asking her to defund Biden’s immigration policies as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which investigates crime.

It is notable that, for all their talk about law and order, the Republican-dominated legislature of Alabama and the state’s Republican governor have just openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, which is hardly an ideological enemy after Trump stacked it to swing to the far right.

The Republican governor of Texas is defying both federal law and international treaties. After rampant scandals, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court refuses to adopt an ethics system that might restore some confidence in their decisions. And, aided by his loyalists, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is threatening mob violence if he is held legally accountable for his behavior.

The genius of the American rebels in 1776 was their belief that a nation could be based not in the hereditary rights of a king but in a body of laws. “Where…is the King of America?” Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense. “I'll tell you Friend…that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

Democracy is based on the rule of law. Undermining the rule of law destroys the central feature of democracy and replaces that system of government with something else.

In Florida today, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon set May 20, 2024, as the date for Trump’s trial for hiding and refusing to give up classified national security documents.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters from an american #heather cox richardson #right wing madness #rule of law #justice #Alabama #Texas #Federal Government #Law is King #ethics

15 notes · View notes

black-paraphernalia · 1 year

Photo

24TH INFANTRY REGIMENT -1917 Houston Texas

Fed up with violent discrimination, these black soldiers took to the streets of Houston for bloody revenge

When it was over, 19 black soldiers were hanged in one of the largest court-martials in U.S. history

FOR THE SOURCE AND FULL STORY BY COSHANDRA DILLARD She is a Writer specializing in social justice, history and culture, health and wellness.

EXCERPT LISTED BELOW

IT was raining on the night of August 23, 1917, when a group of black soldiers took to the streets in Houston. They were there to protest their inhumane treatment and to avenge the death of a fellow soldier.

By the end of the night, 20 people would be dead, resulting in one of the largest court-martials in American military history and, ultimately, the death by hanging of 19 black soldiers.

Camp Logan housed one particularly noteworthy group: the all-black Third Battalion of the 24th infantry. They were the successors of the famed Buffalo Soldiers, African American regiments who fought courageously on the western frontier. City officials assured the military that the black soldiers wouldn’t pose any problems. When the Third Battalion arrived, they found that city officials’ promises had been empty.

Racial tensions were already high in Texas, and indeed across the country, even before the arrival of the Third Battalion. Texas was a forcefully segregated state with a reputation for racist violence. Lynchings had occurred all over the state, in cities such as Temple, Waco, and Galveston.

Black Americans were also still reeling from the recent, widely reported riots in East St. Louis, Illinois, by white mobs that left dozens of African Americans dead and communities decimated.

As historian Robert V. Haynes describes in The Houston Mutiny and Riot of 1917, white Houstonians wanted to keep black soldiers in check, so that black civilians wouldn’t also demand equal treatment.

While in the city, soldiers endured racial slurs and discrimination from residents and police officers. The mere presence of the black men in uniform threatened to undo the social hierarchy, and white residents clung to the old order.

Haynes recounts incidents in which police officers pistol-whipped and arrested black soldiers who tried to intervene when black civilians were harassed by white residents for sitting in “white only” sections on the streetcars or drinking from “white only” fountains.

The black soldiers resented being called “niggers” and insisted that they should be referred to as “colored men.” The riot began when two mounted white police officers, Rufus Daniels and Lee Sparks, assaulted Private Alonzo Edwards for interfering in the arrest of a black woman.

Later, when Corporal Charles Baltimore, a black man in the battalion, tried to inquire about the arrest, it irritated the officers. Sparks struck him with a pistol and shot at him three times. Baltimore fled, but police pursued him until he was cornered in an unoccupied house. He was arrested, but by the time news reached the camp, Baltimore’s fellow black soldiers assumed he was dead.

At least 100 men from different companies marched into the city around 9 p.m. They went to the San Felipe district, a historic black community, in search of Lee Sparks and Rufus Daniels, the two officers involved in the Baltimore arrest.

They found Daniels, whom they killed, along with three other officers. As they moved through the city, they encountered civilians and shot them at random. All in all, 20 people were killed that night. The other men either returned to the camp or hid in black residents’ homes, where they were captured the following day.

As the disarmed black soldiers boarded a train out of Houston a few days later, they left behind a piece of paper that read: “Take Texas and go to hell. I don’t want to go there anymore in my life. Let’s go East and be treated as people.”

Thirteen black soldiers were hung at Camp Travis, by September 1918, following two additional court-martial cases, 53 soldiers were given life sentences and six more soldiers were hung at Camp Travis.

BLACK PARAPHERNALIA DISCLAIMER - PLEASE READ

RESPECTFUL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

#black paraphernalia #this is america still #little known black history

7 notes · View notes

meret118 · 1 year

Text

On Nov. 10, 2022, a judge in the Western District of Texas struck down the federal law that prohibits access to guns for people subject to domestic violence protection orders. He did this based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that, to be constitutional, a firearm restriction must be analogous to laws that were in existence when the country was founded. In other words, disarming domestic abusers violates the Second Amendment because those types of laws didn’t exist at the founding of the country.

. . .

Ruling that these laws are unconstitutional will put mainly women and children in danger. More than 50% of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners, and most of those homicides are committed with guns. A 2003 study found that when an abusive man has access to a gun, it increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by 400%.

Women constitute the majority of victims of intimate partner homicide, and almost one-third of children under the age of 13 who are murdered with a gun are killed in the context of domestic violence.

Moreover, 68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting.

#Trigger warning #Abuse #Violence

1 note · View note

dankusner · 6 minutes

Text

When a Defendant Gets Lost in Translation

The English expression “like a deer in the headlights” has no real equivalent in Spanish.

Instead of its literal translation, “como un ciervo en los faros,” which would be lost on many Spanish speakers, you might instead use the phrasal verb “quedarse pasmado” (“to stay stunned”), which still fails to capture the momentary paralysis that accompanies the subject’s bewilderment.

That’s how Fidel Gutierrez-Garcia looked when defense attorney Robert Garcia spoke to him in Spanish about his case, Garcia would later testify: “like a deer in the headlights.”

Gutierrez-Garcia, a pecan picker from a rural part of the Mexican state of Chihuahua, had been charged in Texas with possession with intent to distribute more than one hundred kilograms of marijuana—a felony, punishable by five to forty years in prison.

On November 30, 2021, he and three other men were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol officers while walking near Van Horn, 120 miles southeast of El Paso, carrying what the officers described as burlap sacks containing the drug.

The agents transported the men and their bags to the Van Horn Border Patrol station for processing.

The next day, two agents responsible for recovering the marijuana interviewed the men.

Unable to speak Spanish, the officers called an interpretation company to facilitate their conversation over the phone. Interpreter Christian Saenz later testified, at a motions hearing in March 2022, that he could tell Gutierrez-Garcia was not a native Spanish speaker.

The defendant, Saenz said, told him that he spoke a Mayan language.

Gutierrez-Garcia’s mother tongue turned out to be Northern Tepehuan, spoken by some 10,000 Indigenous residents of northern Mexico.

It belongs not to the Mayan family of languages but to the Uto-Aztecan family, which includes more than thirty languages spoken by Indigenous people as far north as Idaho and as far south as Nicaragua.

Few linguists in the U.S. have made it their focus.

One of them, Stefanie Ramos Bierge, occupies a postdoctoral position at the New York Botanical Garden, documenting ecological terms in the Uto-Aztecan language Wixárika.

She described Northern Tepehuan as a fast-paced and melodic language that makes frequent use of palatalizations—when consonant sounds are softened by the tongue meeting the palate, as with the “s” in “measure.”

Whereas typical English and Spanish sentences usually follow a subject-verb-object sequence, in Northern Tepehuan the object’s placement is not fixed, and often the speaker will leave out the subject entirely.

On the witness stand in March 2022, Saenz said Gutierrez-Garcia responded to his questions in Spanish, albeit with short replies, though the interpreter could not glean his level of comprehension.

But when he translated Gutierrez-Garcia’s Miranda rights into Spanish, Saenz recalled, Gutierrez-Garcia said he did not understand.

The language barrier became increasingly problematic as the case progressed.

The Western District of Texas appointed Robert Garcia—who spoke fluent Spanish—as Gutierrez-Garcia’s counsel.

Garcia met with Gutierrez-Garcia at the detention center in Sierra Blanca, 85 miles southeast of El Paso, to discuss his plea.

“He said very little,” Garcia testified during the motions hearing.

Having withdrawn from the case in March 2022 because of health issues, he now appeared as a witness for the defense.

(Garcia died later that month.)

“I would talk to him for a while, and he would . . . just sort of nod his head. And then I’d ask him, ‘Do you understand what I am saying?’ He would nod his head.” Garcia continued: “I frankly got the impression right away that . . . he was nodding his head just to be polite more than anything else.”

Given the proximity of the Western District of Texas to the border with Mexico, language interpreters are in high demand.

Typically, the court will supply defendants with one—if it can find an interpreter who speaks the defendant’s mother tongue.

Luis Navarro, a federally certified Spanish-language interpreter for the Western District of Texas’s Pecos and Alpine divisions, spoke with Gutierrez-Garcia to determine whether he could effectively translate for him in court and found that he could not.

“He does speak some Spanish, in the sense of ‘hello,’ ‘goodbye,’ ‘[my] name,’ and that’s it,” Navarro testified at the motions hearing.

Navarro informed the court that he was unable to communicate with the client and tried to help locate an interpreter who could.

But he was unable to enlist one fluent in Northern Tepehuan who was willing to take the case.

After Garcia withdrew as counsel, he was replaced by Shane O’Neal, a criminal defense attorney based in Alpine, an hour north of Big Bend National Park.

O’Neal, who is proficient in Spanish, said he could gather some basic information from Gutierrez-Garcia: he had a wife and child, he lived with his father-in-law, he picked pecans for work.

But O’Neal believed that the language barrier would compromise the case.

He filed a motion to dismiss it on the grounds that his client did not understand Spanish well enough to comprehend the proceedings against him.

“It’s a bedrock principle of our Constitution,” O’Neal told me, “that people aren’t supposed to sit through this Kafkaesque proceeding, where they are in a courtroom and a lot of things are being said but they don’t understand what’s going on, and they’re not playing a meaningful role in making really important decisions that affect both how their case unfolds and what happens to their liberty.”

Brandon Beck, a law professor at Texas Tech University, who worked for eight years as an appellate attorney at the public defender’s office in the Northern District of Texas, compared the issue of language barriers in court to the way the government protects people who are legally “incompetent” from standing trial.

“They can’t participate in their own defense,” he said.

Though the issues of competence and language proficiency are fundamentally different, the takeaway is the same: a defendant’s comprehension is essential to the due process of law.

To demonstrate this point, O’Neal put Gutierrez-Garcia on the stand during the motions hearing.

First demonstrating his client’s ability to understand and respond to basic Spanish, O’Neal asked him a series of simple questions—his name, his place of origin. Gutierrez-Garcia answered these in Spanish.

When O’Neal then asked him questions about the crime he was accused of committing, Gutie-rrez-Garcia’s responses suggested that he understood his infraction.

But as soon as O’Neal began asking questions related to the court proceedings, Gutierrez-Garcia’s comprehension seemed to hit a wall.

“Do you know what a witness is?” O’Neal asked.

“No,” Gutierrez-Garcia said.

“Do you know what a judge is?” O’Neal asked.

“Judge, yes,” Gutierrez-Garcia replied.

“What’s a judge?” O’Neal asked.

“Judge,” Gutierrez-Garcia said.

“Can you tell me who in the room is the judge?” O’Neal asked.

Gutierrez-Garcia replied, “No.”

During a recent press appearance in Eagle Pass, Donald Trump made one of his hallmark incendiary speeches, remarking on migrant traffic crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

“We have languages coming into our country,” he said from the town 330 miles northwest of Brownsville. “We have nobody that even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them.”

The remark drew plenty of criticism that noted the obvious:

“It cannot be the case both that someone speaks a language and that no one speaks that language,” wrote a Washington Post columnist.

But in the sense that some of the rare languages spoken by migrants are barely spoken in the United States, Trump’s not wrong.

“There are people who come here and no one speaks their languages,” said O’Neal.

For the few interpreters in the U.S. court system who are fluent in rare Indigenous languages, the task is a formidable one.

For one, they must contend with the regular challenges of interpretation, making choices about what to prioritize—intonation, logic, sentence structure—within the overall transmission of meaning.

They also face unique challenges in working with languages that lack cultural touchstones common to English and Spanish, said Dale Taylor, a Nebraska-based court-appointed interpreter of a Uto-Aztecan language called Tarahumara, spoken by some 70,000 in the state of Chihuahua.

“They don’t understand a court system. They don’t understand a judicial system,” Taylor said of the Tarahumara people. “They don’t even have a word for a ‘law.’ ”

Bierge noted that the same can be said for Northern Tepehuan.

“Legal terms are not going to be in the language,” she said. The only interpreter Garcia and Navarro were able to find—a missionary who had interpreted for two previous cases—declined to take on Gutierrez-Garcia’s case, citing the difficulty of explaining legal concepts to Northern Tepehuan speakers.

The work of the interpreter within these Indigenous languages requires creativity and contextualization.

Using the example of a “term of probation,” Taylor said of Tarahumara, “there’s no word for ‘probation.’ So you have to say, ‘You’re going to be watched. It’s kind of like you’re going to be watched for five years.’ ”

Emiliana Cruz is a Mexico City–based linguistic anthropologist and an interpreter of Chatino, spoken by about 45,000 people in the state of Oaxaca.

She said communicating legalese to clients in U.S. courts can be an arduous process, often requiring lengthy explanations of abstract concepts.

“I often find that the judges roll their eyes like, ‘Okay, when are you going to be done talking?’ ” Cruz said.

Some judges will assume that her clients’ ignorance of legal matters equates to stupidity.

Cruz’s two sisters, who’d also worked as interpreters, decided they didn’t want to continue; it was too emotionally taxing.

“I do it because I feel that it is the only way someone can understand their rights in their own language,” Cruz said. “I think that is something fundamental for all of us, right?”

Emiliana Cruz, left, hiking with locals and experts in San Juan Quiahije, in Oaxaca, Mexico, to document the names of flora and fauna in the Chatino language, on July 4, 2014.

Gutierrez-Garcia’s motion to dismiss the case was denied.

U.S. district judge David Counts, of the Western District of Texas, concluded that Gutierrez-Garcia had “a sufficient understanding of the Spanish language to proceed to trial with a Spanish interpreter.”

While Counts acknowledged the defendant’s right to an interpreter competent in his primary language, he wrote that the issue ultimately required a balance of the defendant’s rights against the “economical administration of criminal law.”

Gutierrez-Garcia pleaded not guilty but sought to minimize his penalty by accepting responsibility for the crime in what is called a “stipulated bench trial.”

There, the parties agreed that Gutierrez-Garcia had possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it and that he reserved his right to an appeal, where he could challenge the district court’s finding that he was proficient in Spanish.

He was sentenced to 24 months in prison.

In August 2022, O’Neal filed an appeal with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which accounts for a high number of court hearings involving interpreters in the United States, and argued that the district court had abused its discretion.

But a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit deferred to the district court’s decision.

“True, there is evidence in the record that Gutierrez did sometimes struggle to understand legal concepts,” the opinion stated.

It then framed Gutierrez-Garcia’s confusion as an issue not of language but of education.

“The record indicates that Gutierrez never attended school.”

The circuit judges concluded that because Gutierrez-Garcia was able to acknowledge having committed the crime, “any deviations from ideal communication” were minor enough that they would not be considered fundamentally unfair.

In other words, as long as Gutierrez-Garcia was able to admit responsibility, his lack of comprehension of the proceedings or the arguments being made about his sentencing were considered unimportant.

Courts over the years have ruled that the right to an interpreter is necessitated by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which grant certain rights to those accused of crimes, including the right to know the charges and evidence against them.

The Court Interpreters Act, enacted by Congress in 1978, turned those court decisions into statute law, stating that a court should use a certified interpreter provided that a defendant “speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language.”

“If we all agreed he couldn’t speak Spanish, and we all agreed there wasn’t an interpreter there for his particular Indigenous language,” said Beck, “then there is no way to have any of these proceedings without violating the Sixth Amendment and probably the Fifth Amendment . . . and the Court Interpreters Act.”

Nevertheless Beck was unsurprised by the ruling.

“The Fifth Circuit has evolved over time [into] a court that has a lot of emphasis on law and order,” he said. “The Fifth Circuit today is often unsympathetic to the plight of the criminal defendant.”

When Trump took office, in 2017, he had the opportunity to fill more than one hundred judicial vacancies, including seventeen across the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Six of the seventeen judges in the Fifth Circuit are Trump appointees.

“Anytime one third of the court changes with one president—which should never happen—it’s going to shift the ideological perspective of the court,” Beck said.

All three of the judges on O’Neal’s appeal were Trump appointees, including Texas judge Don Willett, whom Trump also considered as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Gutierrez-Garcia’s case was not the first, nor the last, of its kind to appear before the Fifth Circuit.

In United States v. Herrera-Quinones (2022), the Western District of Texas court provided a Tepehuan man with an interpreter fluent in his native language before determining that the defendant’s Spanish was sufficient.

The defense argued that the Tepehuan interpreter should not have been dismissed.

Its request for reversal by the Fifth Circuit was also denied.

In 2023 criminal defense attorney Matthew Kozik’s client Jose Manuel Ayala-Alas, a Tepehuan speaker who was provided with a Spanish interpreter, was sentenced to thirteen and a half years in prison for smuggling marijuana across the border, even after an expert testified that Ayala-Alas spoke Spanish at a second-grade level.

“You have a federal court turning a blind eye to language issues,” said Kozik, who filed for an appeal and is awaiting a ruling.

“This is not just some small-town Hudspeth County state court. This is a federal jurisdiction.”

As his last resort, O’Neal petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear Gutierrez-Garcia’s case, invoking the Court Interpreters Act, as well as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

The odds were against him. Fewer than one percent of the cases heard by the high court involve indigent criminal defendants.

“These are people who are poor, who can’t afford to pay, who are utterly helpless, who are pitted against the most powerful institution in the world—the United States of America,” Beck said.

Gutierrez-Garcia served eighteen months in federal prison.

His current whereabouts are unknown; O’Neal has been unable to contact him. In January the Supreme Court responded that O’Neal’s petition had been denied.

He had expected the result but was disappointed.

Still, he takes solace in the fact that it won’t change Gutierrez-Garcia’s fate significantly.

By the time of the high court’s action, he had already served his time.

0 notes

petnews2day · 1 month

Text

Former K9s For Warriors dog trainer claims nonprofit refused to let her use service dog at work

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/HkD63

Former K9s For Warriors dog trainer claims nonprofit refused to let her use service dog at work

SAN ANTONIO – A former dog trainer for K9s For Warriors has filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal court in San Antonio, claiming that the nonprofit refused to allow her to use her service dog at work and later fired her. The suit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/HkD63 #DogNews #Courts, #K9SForWarriors, #KSATInvestigates, #ServiceDog

#courts #K9s For Warriors #KSAT Investigates #service dog #Dog News

0 notes

newjerseyprelawland-blog · 1 month

Text

Crisis at the Texas Border: Immigration Showdown Unfolds

By Anika Ponni, Rutgers University–New Brunswick Class of 2026

March 26, 2024

Texas has been shrouded in controversy after finding itself at the center of an immigration scandal following the enactment of “Senate Bill 4” or “SB4.” The new anti-immigration measure gives law enforcement the power to detain and deport any residents who have illegally entered the state of Texas. In reality, the bill empowers local and state police officers to round up and arrest anyone they suspect of inhabiting the state illegally. Additionally, those arrested will be deported back to entry ports along the state’s border with Mexico—regardless of whether the migrant is actually even from Mexico.

In response, the Biden Administration has severely admonished SB4 and viewed the State’s transgression as a gross breach of the limits set by the Constitution. Based on previous legal and Constitutional precedents, the federal government should be the only governing body with the power to enforce immigration law.

Currently blocked by an appeals court, the law has remained in a legal limbo of sorts after becoming the target of various lawsuits filed by the U.S. government and the ACLU. Originally, Senate Bill 4 was scheduled to take effect on March 5th. However, the lawsuits delayed this enactment. In particular, a district judge allowed for a “preliminary injunction” to prevent law enforcement from making arrests or unjustly deporting residents while the case was being heard [1].

In his 114–page decision— Judge David A. Ezra of the Western District of Texas—states that “No matter how emphatic Texas’s criticism of the federal government’s handling of immigration on the border may be to some…disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution [2]

Subsequently, the state of Texas appealed the injunction and the appeals court sought the input of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States failed to rule on the constitutionality of the measure and sent the case back down to the lower level appeals court. Thus, ultimately enabling the law to take structure and be implemented for a few hours before the appeals court once again blocked it by issuing an order to allow the previous injunction to stand.

Interestly enough, as the state of Texas continues to deal with various immigration conflicts, the Courts may have to account for international fallout from the rulings as well. According to an Amicus Brief filed with the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Mexico warned of “substantial tension” in regards to U.S.—Mexico relations.

According to the brief: Mexico believes that “Enforcement of SB4 would inappropriately burden the uniform and predictable sovereign-to-sovereign relations between Mexico and the United States, by criminalizing the unauthorized entry of noncitizens into Texas from outside the county and creating diverging removal requirements between and among individual states and the national government…”

Attorneys told the court that the “Enforcement of SB 4 would also interfere with Mexico’s right to determine its own policies regarding entry into its territory, undermine U.S.-Mexico collaboration on a legal migration framework and border management, and hinder U.S.-Mexico trade…”

Foreign Minister—Alicia Barcena—of Mexico: has echoed the U.S. Federal Government's sentiments. According to Barcena, similar to Mexico’s own legal system, U.S. immigration issues should fall under Federal jurisdiction; therefore, the Foreign Minister regards SB4 as “deeply unconstitutional” [3].

As previously cited by Judge Ezra, Republican lawmakers in Texas appear to overwhelmingly support the immigration measure as a means to compensate for the Biden Administration's “permissive” border policies.

According to Texas solicitor general—Aaron Nielson—Senate Bill 4 is necessary because “it helps address what even the president has called a border crisis.”

Nielsen also denies that Texas is trying to appropriate the immigration enforcement capabilities under the Federal Government’s purview.

He states: “That's really not true” and instead believes that "What Texas wants to do is to be able to coordinate with the federal government" [2].

As Texas remains embroiled in political and legal woes, many are reminded of the 2012 Supreme Court decision—Arizona vs. United States. For context, Arizona attempted to create immigration laws that dealt with offenses as “state crimes.” The law required immigrants to carry their legal documents on their persons and present them to law enforcement when prompted to do so. It also gave local and state law enforcement personnel the ability to detain anyone suspected of illegally entering the country. This law left undocumented immigrants fearful of leaving their homes or driving anywhere across the state. The United States Government tried to prevent the measure from being enforced by taking the Arizona state government to federal district court. Ultimately, SCOTUS sided with the Federal government and struck down on most of the provisions enacted by the law [4].

Based on past legal precedent and cases such as Arizona V. United States, many federal prosecutors believe that the much more expansive Texas Law will eventually be deemed unconstitutional. Yet in the meantime, the back-and-forth legal drama does not reflect conducive or effective law-making and enforcement within the country.

______________________________________________________________

Anika Ponni is currently a student at Rutgers University - New Brunswick, pursuing a finance degree in the Honors Program. She hopes to attend law school upon graduation.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Sullivan, B. (2024, March 20). What to know about SB 4, the Texas immigration law in the courts now. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239651676/sb4-texas-immigration-law

[2] Healy, J. (2024, March 19). Texas’ Immigration Crackdown Recalls Arizona’s Divisive “Show Me Your Papers” Law. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/us/texas-arizona-immigration-law.html

[3] Cole, D. (2024, March 21). Mexico warns US court of “substantial tension” if controversial Texas immigration law takes effect | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/politics/mexico-warns-of-substantial-tension-with-the-us-if-federal-court-allows-controversial-texas-immigration-law-to-take-effect/index.html

[4] Arizona v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182

0 notes

thxnews · 3 months

Text

Guilty Plea in Tragic Smuggling Case

Human Trafficking Tragedy Leads to Guilty Plea

A Landmark Case in Combating Illegal Smuggling In a significant legal development, Riley Covarrubias-Ponce, a 31-year-old Mexican citizen, has pleaded guilty to four counts related to his involvement in a tragic human smuggling operation. This operation tragically resulted in the deaths of 47 adults and six children in June 2022. The case, led by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), marks a crucial point in the fight against human trafficking and smuggling.

The Details of a Deadly Smuggling Operation

A Coordinated Effort to Bring Justice Covarrubias-Ponce, identified as a member of a human smuggling organization, played a critical role in the failed smuggling attempt that ended in the deaths of numerous individuals from Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. According to court documents, he coordinated with other members of the organization, overseeing the transport of the noncitizens to Laredo for further transport to San Antonio. This fatal journey along Interstate Highway 35 concluded on Quintana Road in San Antonio, where the grim discovery of the deceased noncitizens was made.

Facing the Consequences: A Lifetime Behind Bars

Strict Penalties for Heinous Crimes By pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport noncitizens resulting in death, one count of conspiracy to transport noncitizens resulting in serious bodily injury and placing lives in jeopardy, one count of transportation of noncitizens resulting in death, and one count of transportation of noncitizens resulting in serious bodily injury and placing lives in jeopardy, Covarrubias-Ponce now faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. His sentencing will be determined by a federal district court judge, taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Other Defendants in the Case A Collective Effort to Uphold Justice This case also involves other defendants who have either pleaded guilty or are still pending trial. Christian Martinez, 29, admitted guilt to the same charges in September 2023. Co-defendants Homero Zamorano Jr., Felipe Orduna-Torres, Luis Alberto Rivera-Leal, and Armando Gonzales-Ortega are awaiting their legal proceedings. Additionally, Juan Francisco D’Luna Bilbao pleaded guilty to the same charges, along with a firearms charge, in June 2023.

The Prosecution Team

A Dedicated Effort to Uphold the Law The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric Fuchs, Sarah Spears, and Amanda Brown for the Western District of Texas. Their efforts represent a committed drive to bring justice in a case that has highlighted the perils and human costs of illegal smuggling operations. HSI's Ongoing Fight Against Human Smuggling Protecting Public Safety and Human Rights HSI San Antonio continues its relentless pursuit to combat the public safety threat posed by human smuggling organizations. These organizations, known for their callous disregard for human life, exploit vulnerable individuals for profit. HSI encourages the public to report suspicious smuggling activity to ensure the safety and protection of potential victims. HSI's Role and International Reach A Global Effort to Combat Transnational Crime HSI, as the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, plays a pivotal role in investigating transnational crime and threats. With a workforce spread across the United States and in numerous countries, HSI's international presence is vital in combating criminal organizations that exploit global infrastructure.

Joint Task Force Alpha's Crucial Role

Enhancing Enforcement Efforts Against Human Trafficking These charges are the result of coordination with Joint Task Force Alpha (JTFA), established by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. JTFA focuses on disrupting and dismantling the most dangerous human smuggling and trafficking networks operating across borders. The task force exemplifies the collaborative efforts of various federal departments and law enforcement agencies in combating these heinous crimes. Sources: THX News & US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Read the full article

#FatalTractor-TrailerSmuggling #FederalLawEnforcementCollaboration #HomelandSecurityInvestigations #HumanSmugglingGuiltyPlea #HumanTraffickingProsecution #IllegalHumanTrafficking #JointTaskForceAlpha #RileyCovarrubias-Ponce #SanAntonioSmugglingCase #TragicSmugglingDeaths

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

The Department of Justice on Monday sued the state of Texas and Gov. Greg Abbott over the installation of a barrier of buoys in the Rio Grande River intended to keep migrants from crossing into the U.S.

The DOJ based its lawsuit on allegations that in building the buoy barrier, Texas violated the Rivers and Harbors Act by obstructing navigable waters of the U.S.

Texas officials began constructing the barrier near the Camino Real International Bridge in Eagle Pass earlier this month, finishing last week, according to the DOJ lawsuit.

Federal officials are asking a Judge to order that Texas remove the existing buoys at their own expense and also that they be enjoined from constructing any further barriers in other waters near the U.S.-Mexico border.

Abbott and the state of Texas allegedly did not seek authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to installing the buoys, as required under law, and that because of that, "the Corps and other relevant federal agencies were deprived of the opportunity to evaluate risks the barrier poses to public safety and the environment, mitigate those risks as necessary through the permitting process, and otherwise evaluate whether the project is in the public interest," the DOJ lawsuit alleges.

The buoys are part of Operation Lone Star, Abbott's major border policy.

"This floating barrier poses threats to navigation and public safety and presents humanitarian concerns. Additionally, the presence of the floating barrier has prompted diplomatic protests by Mexico and risks damaging U.S. foreign policy," Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said in a statement on Monday.

A Judge from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas had not yet been assigned to the case as of Monday afternoon.

It was not immediately clear how soon until Texas has to answer the allegations in court. Abbott's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a letter on Friday, the DOJ had warned the Governor that Texas' "actions violate federal law, raise humanitarian concerns, present serious risks to public safety and the environment, and may interfere with the federal government's ability to carry out its official duties."

On Monday, Abbott responded with a letter to President Joe Biden remaining defiant -- and indicating his state's defense will hinge on what he describes as Texas' "sovereign authority" to protect its borders.

"Texas will see you in court, Mr. President," Abbott wrote, hours before the DOJ announced its suit.

Abbott, a Republican, has long assailed what he calls the failure of the Biden administration's border and immigration policies. He's also been busing migrants out of Texas to Democratic-led states and cities -- a move that has stoked outcry from advocates.

On Friday, the Governor said in a statement that his administration, along with Texas' Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard, are "continuing to work together to secure the border; stop the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and people into Texas; and prevent, detect, and interdict transnational criminal behavior between ports of entry," citing statistics on hundreds of thousands of apprehensions and criminal arrests made under Operation Lone Star.

Responding to the DOJ lawsuit on Monday, White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan, said, in part: "Governor Abbott's dangerous and unlawful actions are undermining that effective plan, making it hard for the men and women of Border Patrol to do their jobs of securing the border, and putting migrants and border agents in danger."

79 notes · View notes