Following a directive from the Justice Department that they characterized as a bid to” stifle” judges ‘ ability to speak openly about immigration-related issues, a dispute involving the union status of immigration judges has attracted the Republican leadership of the House Judiciary Committee.
Recently, the Office for Immigration Review mandated that some recent immigration courts obtain regulatory clearance to speak in public with anyone outside the Justice Department regarding those matters. It stated that because they no longer own individual right to speak in public with the National Association of Immigration Judges, conventional policy still applies to them.
The frequently litigated issue of whether immigration courts are available for union representation is at the heart of the debate. At the request of the next- Trump presidency, in 2020 the FLRA—then with a Democratic majority—held that they are disqualified as management officials, on grounds that their decisions is identify agency policy. That ended four years of the federation being recognized for negotiation and representation.
In late 2021 the Biden presidency essentially agreed to recognize the union by withdrawing its predecessor’s demand. However, the FLRA rejected the union’s request to evaluate that decision in the next year, at the time when it was still dominated by Republicans. Eventually, a federal appeals court reversed the decision, stating that the FLRA would still decide the matter. The Justice Department’s new directive cited the nevertheless- in- area 2020 FLRA choice.
The letter from the commission leaders furthers the request for documents in response to the request for documents that pertains to that decision by the Department’s reported joke order on immigration judges by ostensibly violating a clause in the quarterly federal appropriations law.
The IFPTE coalition, the family union of the emigration judges union, equally has decried the Justice Department mandate. ” Just because a highly partisan decision by the FLRA’s board, that is likely to be reversed, limited NAIJ’s ability to collectively bargain, does n’t mean that NAIJ and its national union IFPTE ca n’t meet and confer with the DOJ, provide legal services to our members, have officers serve on professional committees, speak to the media, offer training and other services a union provides”, it said.
