Probably the number one rule for any practicing attorney is that you do not make the Judge angry. In Brownsville, Texas, the United States attorneys managed to mislead the judge over his immigration order. They issued 100,000 work permits after he had put things on hold. The judge may issue sanctions on all the lawyers involved. Don’t you think he should?
As Written By Laurel Brubaker Calkins for Bloomberg:
Lawyers for the federal government have been squirming for more than a year under the threat of punishment from a Texas judge who’s convinced they lied to him about President Obama’s immigration program. They may be uncomfortable a while longer.
When U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville blocked administration plans to shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them work permits, he extracted a promise from Justice Department attorneys — in person and in writing — that “nothing would happen” before his order took effect.
Hanen didn’t hide his fury when government officials issued about 100,000 work permits in spite of the department’s assurances. He accused the lawyers of being intentionally deceptive. One Justice Department attorney visibly shook during a hearing last year and hasn’t been back to Hanen’s courtroom. The judge also ordered the Justice Department to take several attorneys off the high-profile case, adding that he would yank their law licenses if it were up to him.
On Wednesday, the judge listened as a Justice Department lawyer told him attorneys on the case unintentionally provided bad information because they had either forgotten bureaucrats had begun issuing the work permits or didn’t think it was important to the main immigration reforms being challenged.
“First, we are sorry for the mistakes that we made that led to this situation,” James Gilligan told Hanen. “Sorry for leading this court to believe it had been misled. Sorry for the time and energy this issue has consumed.”
The fight over immigration policy has been a key talking point in the presidential race, with Republican nominee Donald Trump arguing for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and demanding that Mexico pay for it. Wednesday’s court hearing coincided with …
Full Story Continues Here: