House Republicans in Washington launched a demand for explanations on the Justice Department’s directive requiring immigration judges’ union to obtain supervisor approval before speaking publicly about the courts, which are currently overwhelmed with cases.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Tom McClintock, who leads an immigration subcommittee, initiated the request for records regarding “a reported gag order that forbids immigration judges from speaking with Congress or the news media about the (Biden) Administration’s unprecedented immigration crisis.”
The lawmakers addressed David Neal, director of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, emphasizing that the order seemingly contradicts the federal employees’ right to freely communicate with Congress.
According to a report by The Associated Press earlier this month, Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty informed leaders of the National Association of Immigration Judges about the requirement for approval “to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews).” This directive refers to a 2020 decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, revoking the union’s collective bargaining power and asserting that its earlier rights were “not valid at present.”
The union, established 53 years ago, has frequently engaged in public discourse, interviews with the media, and discussions with congressional staff, often to criticize the management of the courts. It has advocated for increased independence and access to legal representation as the backlog of cases in the courts has surged to over 3 million.
Reacting to the House inquiry, Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, which encompasses the judges’ union, expressed that the order raises suspicions about potential motives to conceal information. He stressed the importance of transparency and hearing from the judges who are directly involved in handling immigration cases.
As of now, the immigration courts have not provided a comment in response to the inquiry. Earlier this month, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson, declined to discuss “personnel matters” when asked about the directive.
