Federal Judge in Texas Demands Justice Dept. Lawyers Take Ethics Class

[clearvision]

New York Times:

A federal judge in Texas on Thursday excoriated the Justice Department, demanding ethics classes for the department’s lawyers and ordering other sanctions for those who argued the case involving President Obama’s immigration executive actions.

 

He also ordered the government to produce a list of about 100,000 immigrants who entered illegally and who are participating in a government program that protects them from deportation.

 

In a blistering order, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville accused the Justice Department lawyers of lying to him during arguments in the case, and he barred them from appearing in his courtroom.

 

He also demanded that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch provide a “comprehensive plan” within 60 days describing how she will prevent unethical conduct in the future, as well as making sure the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility effectively prevents misconduct among its lawyers.

---------------

Ouch....

[Valin]

Federal judge lowers the boom on DoJ after “bad faith … misrepresentations”
Ed Morrissey
May 20, 2016

The federal judge hearing the challenge to Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration threw the book at the Department of Justice yesterday in a rare show of judicial force, the National Law Journal’s Zoe Tillman reported. In an order that details material misrepresentations made by DoJ attorneys in his court, Judge Andrew Hanen has demanded a full list of illegal immigrants granted benefits in the lapsed time. Hanen then blocked DoJ attorneys from appearing in any court in the 26 states involved until they take an ethics course, and further demanded that Attorney General Loretta Lynch to report within 60 days about how she plans to correct the failures in the Office of Professional Responsibility:

(Snip)

Hanen’s order minced no words. He accuses government attorneys of a pattern of dishonest behavior and “bad faith,” and of deliberately deceiving the plaintiffs in the lawsuit in order to prevent an earlier request for a restraining order:

This Court has found no authority to support the concept that it is ever ethical and appropriate conduct to mislead a court and opposing counsel; nor has the Government provided any authority to that effect. That being the case, the Court finds no need for a comprehensive dissertation on the duty of candor and honesty because counsel in this case failed miserably at both. The Government’s lawyers in this case clearly violated their ethical duties.

To say that the Government acted contrary to its multiple assurances to this Court is, at best, an understatement. The Government knowingly acted contrary to its representations to this Court on over 100,000 occasions.11 This Court finds that the misrepresentations detailed above: (1) were false; (2) were made in bad faith; and (3) misled both the Court and the Plaintiff States.

Both the Court and the attorneys representing the Plaintiff States relied upon February 18, 2015, (the implementation day for the 2014 DHS Directive specified by the Government attorneys) as the controlling date. The Court issued the temporary injunction on February 16, 2015. The timing of this ruling was clearly made based upon the representations that no action would be taken by Defendants until February 18, 2015. If Plaintiffs’ counsel had known that the Government was surreptitiously acting, the Plaintiff States could have, and would have according to their representations, sought a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b much earlier in the process. Their clear intent until the Government misrepresented the facts during the December 19, 2014, conference call was to obtain a hearing before year’s end. Due to the Government’s wrongful misstatements, the Plaintiff States never got that opportunity. The misrepresentations of the Government’s attorneys were material and directly caused the Plaintiff States to forgo a valuable legal right to seek more immediate relief. …

The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct. There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations; such a sizable omission cannot be classified as immaterial.

 

(Snip)

[SrWoodchuck]

@Valin

 

I applaud Judge Hanen for his stand. Pretty dangerous actually separating the Oblunder Progressive narrative in action...from the truth. Those D'OH-J lawyers are used to peddling admin-crap & having it accepted without any squeaks. Reality has "harshed their mellow." Hope it doesn't come back on da'Judge.

[clearvision]

@SrWoodchuck

Nothing bad ever happens to conservative judges while in Texas..... Oh Wait...

[Draggingtree]

Judge in immigration case issues sweeping new order

By Lyle Denniston on May 20, 2016 at 11:29 am

The federal judge who first shut down President Barack Obama’s sweeping immigration policy gave himself another controversial role on Thursday: overseeing required ethical schooling of every Washington-based Justice Department lawyer who appears in any court — federal or state — in twenty-six states over the next five years.

 

District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, took that highly unusual step as one of the remedies for what he found to be serious ethical violations in his court by Justice Department attorneys when the new immigration dispute was before him in late 2014 and early 2015. That case is now awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court to determine the fate of delayed deportation of nearly five million undocumented immigrants.

 

The twenty-six states where the judge’s order could have an impact on the professional lives of Washington-based government lawyers are the ones that sued to challenge the Obama administration policy, and they are the ones the judge said had been harmed by misconduct.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judge-in-immigration-case-issues-sweeping-new-order/