DOCSLIB.ORG

Orantes-Hernandez V. Meese, 685 F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Orantes-Hernandez V. Meese, 685 F Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales United States District Court for the Central District of California August 21, 2006, Decided ; August 21, 2006, Filed; August 22, 2006, Docketed Case No. CV 82-01107 MMM (VBKx) Reporter: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95387 Orantes-Hernandez, et al. v. Gonzales, et al. CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Prior History: Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20202 (9th Cir. Cal., 1990) Proceedings: Order Granting Plaintiffs' Request For Limited Discovery On Expedited Removal And Setting A Counsel: [*1] For Crosby Wilfredo Orantes-Hernandez, Telephonic Status Conference For August 31, 2006 Organizacion de Profesionales Y Tecnicos Salvadorenos, Casa El Salvador-Farabundo Marti, Salvadorean American Plaintiffs filed this action in 1982, challenging practices and Professional Association, Concillo Manzo, Central American procedures allegedly employed by the Immigration and Refugee Program, Marta Ester Paniaguavides, Jose Sanchez Naturalization Service ("INS") to detain, process and remove Flores, Dora Alicia Ayala de Castillo, Adelso Salome Flores, Salvadoran nationals who had entered the United States. Uvaldo Aguilar, Dora Elia Estrada, Juan Francisco Perez- Plaintiffs sued on their own behalf and on behalf of a certified Cruz, Ana Estela Guevarra-Flores, Maria Elena Molina, class of "all citizens and nationals of El Salvador eligible to Candido Carcamo Marroquin, Deia Elizabeth Garcia- apply for political asylum … who have been or will be taken Quintanilla, Marta Osorio, Gloria De Flores, Jose Eduardo into custody … by agents of the [INS]; or … subsequent to Rubio, Jose Francisco Marroquin-Salvador, Refugiado Uno- June 2, 1980, requested or will in the future request, political Cuatro, Plaintiffs: Karen C Tumlin, LEAD ATTORNEY, asylum in the United States whose claims have not yet been National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, CA US; presented [*3] or adjudicated." Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, Linton Joaquin, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Immigration 541 F. Supp. 351, 354-55 (C.D. Cal. 1982). Law Center, Los Angeles, CA; Mark D Rosenbaum, LEAD ATTORNEY, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los On April 29, 1988, Judge David Kenyon entered a permanent Angeles, CA; Ranjana Natarajan, LEAD ATTORNEY, injunction that mandated INS use of specific procedures when ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. detaining, processing and removing Salvadoran immigrants. See Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese, 685 F. Supp. 1488, 1511- For Alberto R Gonzales, Attorney General of the United 13 (C.D. Cal. 1988), aff'd., 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990). On States, William French Smith, Attorney General of the United July 2, 1991, Judge Kenyon issued a modified permanent States; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Alexander injunction, which added four conditions that applied solely to Haig, Secretary of the United States Department of State, the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Port Isabel, Texas Defendants: [*2] Frank Michael Travieso, LEAD (" Orantes injunction"). On September 28, 2004, the court ATTORNEY, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Civil Division, entered a stipulated order clarifying the terms of the Los Angeles, CA; John E Nordin, II, LEAD ATTORNEY, injunction to eliminate the possibility that the Office of AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, Refugee Settlement, an agency responsible for the care of CA; Victor M Lawrence, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. unaccompanied alien children who are in federal custody due Immigration Litigation, Civil Division U.S. Department of to their immigration status, could be held in violation of the Justice, Washington, DC. Orantes injunction. Judges: Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. On November 28, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dissolve MORROW. the permanent injunction. 1 On January 3, 2005, after holding two status conferences in which defendants Opinion 1 The Orantes injunction enjoins "defendants, their agents and successors in office." See Orantes-Hernandez, 685 F. Supp. at 1511. As a result, defendants concede that the injunction binds the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") as successor to the INS, and its sub- agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). It is these entities that have moved to dissolve the injunction. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95387, *5 Page 2 of 7 raised various concerns regarding the [*4] court's jurisdiction implementation of the expedited removal program because to decide matters pertaining to the expedited removal the court lacks jurisdiction to consider challenges to the procedures enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform expedited removal statute. In their written filings, defendants and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), the have relied primarily on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and court on January 3, 2005, directed each party to file a brief 1252(e)(3)(A). regarding its jurisdiction to address such matters. The court ordered that discovery regarding defendants' expedited A. Sections 1252(a)(2)(A) And 1252(e)(3)(A) removal procedures be stayed pending a decision on the jurisdictional question. On May 8, 2006, the court held a Section 1252(a)(2)(A) strips the courts, inter alia, of hearing on the jurisdictional issue; at the conclusion of that jurisdiction to review individual removal decisions under § hearing, it directed plaintiffs to submit a brief describing the 1225(b)(1), claims or causes of action arising from such discovery they sought regarding expedited removal. Plaintiffs decisions, and "procedures and policies adopted by the filed this brief on May 12, 2006. Defendants filed a response Attorney General" to implement expedited [*7] removal. on May 17, 2006, and plaintiffs replied on May 31, 2006. Section 1252(e) restores a limited range of jurisdiction to the Based on the parties' arguments at the May 8 hearing, and district court for the District of Columbia. Of particular their briefs regarding discovery, the court finds that limited relevance here is § 1252(e)(3)(A), which provides: discovery regarding expedited removal is appropriate for the reasons discussed herein. "Judicial review of determinations under section 1225(b) of this title [authorizing expedited removal] [*5] DISCUSSION and its implementation is available in an action instituted in the United States District Court for the A party seeking modification or dissolution of an injunction District of Columbia, but shall be limited to bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in determinations of -- facts or law warrants revision or dissolution of the injunction. (i) whether such section, or any regulation issued to Sharp v.Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000); implement such section, is constitutional; or Bellevue Manor Assoc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999); see also FED.R.Civ.PROC. 60(b)(5) (a court (ii) whether such a regulation, or a written policy may modify or dissolve an injunction if "it is no longer directive, written policy guideline, or written equitable that the judgment should have prospective procedure issued by or under the authority of the application"); Rufov. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. Attorney General to implement such section, is not 367, 383, 112 S. Ct. 748, 116 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1992). consistent with applicable provisions of this subchapter or is otherwise in violation of law." 8 Defendants advance multiple arguments in support of their U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(A). Section 1252(e)(3)(B) motion to dissolve the Orantes injunction: (1) there has been a requires that any action under § 1252(e)(3)(A) "be significant change in the factual circumstances that led to filed no later than 60 days after the date the issuance of the injunction -- i.e., the end of the civil war and challenged section, regulation, directive, guideline, human rights abuses in El Salvador and the adoption of a or procedure described in clause (i) or (ii) of range of procedures by U.S. immigration authorities that subparagraph (A) is first implemented." [*8] 8 ensure aliens are advised of their right to apply for asylum U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(B). and are not coerced into waiving that right; and (2) there has been an intervening change in the law -- i.e., the Defendants contend that these provisions deprive the court of enactment [*6] of IIRIRA, which provides for expedited jurisdiction to hear any challenge plaintiffs may make to the removal of inadmissible aliens. As respects the latter government's expedited removal procedures. The question is argument, defendants contend that the injunction conflicts whether the fact that plaintiffs oppose defendants' motion to with the statute and regulations governing expedited removal, dissolve the Orantes injunction on grounds that it conflicts and also that the injunction makes it burdensome for with the expedited removal program, or burdens immigration authorities to place Salvadorans in expedited implementation of that program, constitutes a challenge of the removal. type referenced in § 1252(a)(2)(A) or § 1252(e)(3). The court concludes that it does not. Although asserting that the passage of IIRIRA and its expedited removal provisions requires dissolution of the The only questions before the court respecting expedited injunction, defendants have steadfastly maintained that removal are whether the Orantes injunction mandates plaintiffs are entitled to no discovery regarding the procedures that govern expedited removal, or the 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95387, *8 Page 3 of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attorney General Holder Requests That President Assert Executive
    <.@ffite of tqe 1\ttcrnel_! ~enernl lias ~ington. ID. QT. 205.30 June 19,2012 The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President, I am writing to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to confidential Department of Justice ("Department") documents that are responsive to the subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives ("Committee") on October 25, 2011. The subpoena relates to the Committee's investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, a law enforcement operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona to stem the illegal flow of firearms from the United States to drug cartels in Mexico ("Fast and Furious"). The Committee has scheduled a meeting for June 20, 2012, to vote on a resolution holding me in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoena. I. The Committee's subpoena broadly sweeps in various groups of documents relating to both the conduct of Operation Fast and Furious and the Department's response to congressional inquiries about that operation. In recognition of the seriousness ofthe Committee's concerns about both the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious and the inaccuracies concerning the use of those tactics in the letter that the Department sent to Senator Grassley on February 4, 2011 ("February 4 Letter"), the Department has taken a number of significant steps in response to the Committee's oversight. First, the Department has instituted various reforms to ensure that it does not repeat these law enforcement and oversight mistakes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 66 | Issue 5 Article 1 10-2013 The ourF th Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L. Rush Atkinson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation L. Rush Atkinson, The ourF th Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review xi (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol66/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History and Limits L. Rush Atkinson 66 Vand. L. Rev. 1343 (2013) Each year, federal agents conduct thousands of "national security investigations" into suspected spies, terrorists, and other foreign threats. The constitutional limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment, however, remain murky, and the extent to which national security justifies deviations from the Amendment's traditional rules is unclear. With little judicial precedent on point, the gloss of past executive practice has become an important means for gauging the boundaries of today's national security practices. Accounts of past executive practice, however, have thus far been historically incomplete, leading to distorted analyses of its precedential significance. Dating back to World War II, national security investigations have involved warrantless surveillance and searches-conduct clearly impermissible in the traditional law-enforcement context- authorized under the theory of a "national security" or "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-11-HR Haldeman
    Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 12 11 11/19/1971 Campaign Memo From Gordon Strachan to The Attorney General. RE: The attachment of Bill Safire's memo on the Kennedy victory scenario. 1 pg 12 11 11/15/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: The number of youth appointments the Nixon Administration has made in comparison to McGovern's campaign. 1 pg. 12 11 11/10/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Salute to Presidential Dinner/November 9, 1971. 2 pgs. 12 11 11/10/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: The reactions to the Presidential Dinners/November 9, 1971. 4 pgs. Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 12 11 11/10/1971 White House Staff Memo Memorandum of Call from Nofziger to G. RE: Message that reads, "Have dinner material-sending you." 5 pgs. 12 11 Domestic Policy Other Document Handwritten notes. RE: Salute to the President Dinners-November 9, 1972. Descriptions include: Reaction to dinners, Lee Nunn's descriptions, and reports from Bob Dole. 5 pgs. 12 11 11/2/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Disagreement between Nofziger and Leonard concerning the delay in getting "First Monday" out. 1 pg. 12 11 11/16/1971 Campaign Letter From Gordon Strachan to Robert M. King. RE: Appreciation for Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT [ 1 ] EXPLANATORY NOTE A Cabinet officer is not appointed for a fixed term and does not necessarily go out of office with the President who made the appointment. While it is customary to tender one’s resignation at the time a change of administration takes place, officers remain formally at the head of their department until a successor is appointed. Subordinates acting temporarily as heads of departments are not con- sidered Cabinet officers, and in the earlier period of the Nation’s history not all Cabinet officers were heads of executive departments. The names of all those exercising the duties and bearing the respon- sibilities of the executive departments, together with the period of service, are incorporated in the lists that follow. The dates immediately following the names of executive officers are those upon which commis- sions were issued, unless otherwise specifically noted. Where periods of time are indicated by dates as, for instance, March 4, 1793, to March 3, 1797, both such dates are included as portions of the time period. On occasions when there was a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President pro tem- pore is listed as the presiding officer of the Senate. The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Oct. 15, 1933) changed the terms of the President and Vice President to end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of Senators and Representatives to end at noon on the 3d day of January when the terms of their successors shall begin. [ 2 ] EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, 1789–2005 First Administration of GEORGE WASHINGTON APRIL 30, 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1793 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE WASHINGTON, of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary Jo White
    Testimony of Mary Jo White Partner Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP February 6, 2007 Statement of Mary Jo White Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing: "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing ofD.S. Attorneys?" February 6,2007 My name is Mary Jo White. I am providing this written statement and testifying at this hearing at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. By way of background, I spent over fifteen years in the Department of Justice (the "Department"), both as an Assistant United States Attorney and as United States Attorney. J served during the tenures of seven Attorneys General: Griffin B. Bell, Benjamin R. Civiletti, William French Smith, Richard L. Thornburgh, William P. Barr, Janet Reno and John Ashcroft. I was twice appointed as an Interim United States Attorney, first in the Eastern District of New York in 1992 by Attorney General Barr and then in 1993 by Attorney General Reno in the Southern District of New York. Most recently, I served for nearly nine years as the Presidentially-appointed United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from September 1993 until January 2002. I was the Chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee from 1993-1994. Since April 2002, J have served as the Chair of the Litigation Group of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, the law firm at which I started my legal career. Maintaining the prosecutorial independence of the United States Attorneys, which is the subject of this hearing, is vital to ensuring the fair and impartial administration of 22387065v2 justice in our federal system.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr
    Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr. Photographs 96-14-1: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken his senior year of high school, 1919-1920. Same as 96- 14-675. Credit: Dole Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 2 ¼ x 3 ¾ b/w prints. 96-14-2: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr.; this was his high school graduation picture, taken in 1920. Same as 96-14-733 and 96-14-892. Credit: Townsend Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 3 x 4 b/w prints. 96-14-3: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken when he was a junior at the University of Nebraska, 1922-23. Same as 96-14-673 and 96-14-893. Credit: unknown. One 3 x 4 b/w print. 96-14-4: “Herbert Brownell Jr., Peru, Neb., 17 months old.” Baby picture of Herbert Brownell, Jr. Same as 96-14-903. Credit: Lewis, Utica, NY. One 2 x 2 ¾ oval b/w print on 4 x 5 ½” card. 96-14-5: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., as a young man; face in profile. Credit: unknown. One 5 x 7 b/w print. 96-14-6: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., probably in late 1940s. Credit: unknown. One 4 x 5 b/w print. 96-14-7: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., outside of a brick building; probably 1ate 1920s or early 1930s. Credit: unknown. One 7 x 8 b/w print. 96-14-8: Photo of Herbert Brownell standing in front of a bookcase, reading a book; 1940s. Credit: Acme Newspictures, Inc., NYC. One 7 x 9 b/w print.
    [Show full text]
  • Oval #596: October 19, 1971 [Complete Tape Subject Log]
    1 NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS STAFF Tape Subject Log (rev. 10/06) Conversation No. 596-1 Date: October 19, 1971 Time: Unknown between 7:53 am and 8:06 am Location: Oval Office The President met with Stephen B. Bull. The President's schedule Bull left at 8:06 am. Conversation No. 596-2 Date: October 19, 1971 Time: Unknown between 8:06 am and 10:14 am Location: Oval Office Unknown people met. The President's location The unknown people left at an unknown time before 10:14 am. Conversation No. 596-3 Date: October 19, 1971 Time: 10:14 am - 10:55 am Location: Oval Office The President met with John N. Mitchell. Greetings -Weather The President's schedule 2 NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS STAFF Tape Subject Log (rev. 10/06) Conv. No. 596-3 (cont.) -Previous evening event at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts -Mitchell’s view -Mrs. J. Willard Marriott -Kennedy family ********************************************************************** BEGIN WITHDRAWN ITEM NO. 1 [Privacy] [Duration: 7s ] END WITHDRAWN ITEM NO. 1 ********************************************************************** -Kennedy supporters -H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman -Board of Directors -William D. Blair, Jr. Supreme Court appointments -Lewis F. Powell, Jr. -Mitchell's previous conversation with Powell -Health concerns -Powell's schedule -Mitchell's forthcoming conversation with Lawrence E. Walsh -American Bar Association [ABA] approval -Woman candidate -Mildred L. Lillie -Chance of ABA approval -Lillie's husband -William French Smith -Powell -Qualifications -Smith -Candidates -Corporate lawyers -ABA 3 NIXON PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS STAFF Tape Subject Log (rev. 10/06) Conv. No. 596-3 (cont.) -William H. Mulligan -Catholic -Age -Circuit Court of Appeals -Potential problems with ABA -Powell -Mulligan -Possible ABA vote -Length of time on court -Political appeal -Smith -Mulligan -Woman -Smith -Mulligan -Mitchell’s assessment -Powell -Charles D.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2008 Fbi Guidelines: Contradiction of Original Purpose
    \\server05\productn\B\BPI\19-1\BPI105.txt unknown Seq: 1 25-FEB-10 14:33 THE 2008 FBI GUIDELINES: CONTRADICTION OF ORIGINAL PURPOSE ALLISON JONES I. INTRODUCTION As charged at its inception, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pro- tects the citizens of the United States from both domestic and foreign security threats by selectively investigating individuals and groups that have shown a tendency towards or have threatened acts that would jeopardize national securi- ty.1 In response to political climate and contemporary events, the Attorney General’s office promulgated the first FBI guidelines in 1976, signaling a new era in which the Executive Branch would provide guidance and boundaries for its premier police force.2 Attorney General Edward H. Levi created the original FBI guidelines in response to the staggering privacy and free speech violations exposed during the Nixon Administration, intending the guidelines to prevent such abuses in the future and protect U.S. citizens while permitting the FBI to perform its intelligence operations within constitutional boundaries.3 Since their creation, the FBI guidelines have restricted the FBI’s investigatory activi- ties to those within constitutional limits, especially with respect to invasions of privacy and unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens; however, over the years, several revisions of the guidelines have chipped away at the boundaries that Attorney General Levi erected. The newest guidelines, which took effect on December 1, 2008 under the authority of then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, affirmatively authorize the kinds of abuses and constitutional viola- tions that the original FBI guidelines of 1976 sought to prevent.4 Attorneys General have used the FBI guidelines to express policy and react to contemporary security concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection: Meese, Edwin III: Files Folder Title: Task Force on South Florida (1) Box: OA 11841
    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Meese, Edwin III: Files Folder Title: Task Force on South Florida (1) Box: OA 11841 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ Task Force on South Florida Crime: In support of the civilian law enforcement agencies working under the direction of the Task Force on South Florida Crime, the Department of Defense has instructed the Air Force to place a balloon-borne radar at Patrick Air Force base~ This will enable it to monitor permanently the air corridor along the Southeastern coast of Florida now most frequently used by those who smuggle drugs il­ legally into the country by air. It will also be able to carry out Air Force missions simultaneously. The Air Force is currently identifying funds necessary for the project, and we expect the job to be complete in eight to ten months. (U) - SOUTH FLORIDA SPECIAL TASK FORCE President Reagan set up South Florida Special Task Force on January 28. Vice President Bush chairs. Members are Cabinet level. Targets are illegal drugs, crime, and refugees. Task Force is meant to assist and cooperate with state and local law enforcement officials -- not to supercede their responsibilities. Problems: 1. Insufficient jail space; 2. Insufficient court rooms; 3. An insufficient number of judges; 4.
    [Show full text]
  • [Table 7-6] CABINET NOMINATIONS, Since 1789 President/ Position
    [Table 7-6] CABINET NOMINATIONS, Since 1789 President/ Position Date of Confirmation Nominee Nomination 1 or Other Action 2 WASHINGTON_________________________________________________________________________ Edmund Randolph Attorney General Sept. 25, 1789 Sept. 26, 1789 William Bradford Attorney General Jan. 24, 1794 Jan. 27, 1794 Charles Lee Attorney General Dec. 9, 1795 Dec. 10, 1795 Samuel Osgood Postmaster General Sept. 25, 1789 Sept. 26, 1789 Timothy Pickering Postmaster General Nov. 1, 1789 Nov. 7, 1789 Joseph Habersham Postmaster General Feb. 24, 1795 Feb. 25, 1795 Thomas Jefferson State Sept. 25, 1789 Sept. 26, 1789 Edmund Randolph State Jan. 1, 1794 Jan. 2, 1794 Timothy Pickering State Dec. 9, 1795 Dec. 10, 1795 Alexander Hamilton Treasury Sept. 11, 1789 Sept. 11, 1789 Oliver Wolcott, Jr. Treasury Feb. 2, 1795 Feb. 3, 1795 Henry Knox War Sept. 11, 1789 Sept. 12, 1789 Timothy Pickering War Jan. 2, 1795 Jan. 2, 1795 James McHenry War Jan. 26, 1796 Jan. 27, 1796 Total Cabinet nominations = 14 ADAMS________________________________________________________________________________ Charles Lee Attorney General continued * [Theophilus Parsons Attorney General Feb. 18, 1801 Feb. 20, 1801 D] Benjamin Stoddert Navy May 18, 1798 May 21, 1798 Joseph Habersham Postmaster General continued * Timothy Pickering State continued * John Marshall State May 12, 1800 May 13, 1800 Oliver Wolcott, Jr. Treasury continued * Samuel Dexter Treasury Dec. 30, 1800 Dec. 31, 1800 James McHenry War continued * Samuel Dexter War May 12, 1800 May 13, 1800 [Lucius Stockton War Jan. 15, 1801 Jan. 29, 1801 W] Roger Griswold War Jan. 29, 1801 Feb. 3, 1801 25-5 Total Cabinet nominations =7 JEFFERSON____________________________________________________________________________ Levi Lincoln Attorney General Mar. 5, 1801 Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Successful Attorney General - an Oxymoron? (1999) 73(2) Australian Law Journal 91
    The successful Attorney General - an oxymoron? (1999) 73(2) Australian Law Journal 91 The office of the Attorney General in a parliamentary democracy is an unusual one. In some ways, it symbolises the difficulties inherent in the separation of powers doctrine. The Attorney General sits at the cusp of the three institutions. He or she is part of the executive, and, generally speaking1, a member of the legislature. At the same time, the Attorney General also owes certain duties to the judiciary. On occasion, these demands have collided, and led to recriminations, resignations, and even the jailing of Attorneys General. Given these constraints, can there ever be such a thing as a “successful” Attorney General? Success in ministerial office depends upon both doing “a good job” in the relevant policy area, and upon satisfying one’s political colleagues. Yet the Attorney General is often required to put the public interest above the interests of his or her political party, and even above the interests of the government as a whole. It is rare that other ministers will be required to do the same. Two models of Attorneys General In her study of US Attorneys General, American academic Nancy Baker2 posits two archetypes – the “Advocate” and the “Neutral”. Advocates are principally interested in the political concerns of the administration. An Advocate Attorney General is, in the words of one writer, “the President’s lawyer”3. American political history is replete with examples. · Robert Kennedy, perhaps the archetypal model of an Advocate Attorney General. He felt passionately about issues of poverty, discrimination and corruption, and maintained some involvement (albeit mostly indirect) in political activities during his term in office.
    [Show full text]
  • Vanderbilt University Law School ~~Promoting Truth in the Courtroom" 10/6/86
    Vanderbilt University Law School ~~Promoting Truth in the Courtroom" 10/6/86 It is a distinct privilege to be with you, and to join my predecessors as Attorney General ­ Elliot Richardson, Judge Griffin Bell, and William French Smith - in becoming a Cecil Sims Lecturer. But best of all, as a former law professor, it is good to be back "in front of a class." By the way, I haven't decided yet whether a pop-quiz will follow this lecture, but you may want to be prepared. One of the best features about university life is the freedom it affords to pursue the search for knowledge. In virtually all disciplines, an understanding of certain truths, of the way vari­ ous historical or scientific facts fit together, is an important starting point for further learning and deliberation. The search for truth is also a tremendously important undertaking beyond the campus walls, and especially in the realm of criminal justice. That endeavor, the effort to arrive at an accurate assessment of the truth or falsity of charges of criminal misconduct, is th~ subject of my remarks today. The Gospel ofJohn, chapter 8 verse 32, tells us that "The truth shall make you free." In the broadest human and spiritual senses this is surely so. In the criminal law, however, I'm afraid that too often the opposite is the case. Today, criminals - people who have committed violent and serious crimes and whose guilt is clear beyond any doubt - often go free because in important ways our criminal justice system obstructs the search for truth.
    [Show full text]