The head of Department of Justice was at a loss for a credible explanation, when a US Senator confronted her over the fact that children are often forced to appear in deportation courts without a lawyer.
During a Senate oversight hearing Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), called on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to account for the department’s decision to not mandate representation for children in immigration proceedings.
Leahy also called on AG Lynch to address the controversial statements made last week by federal immigration judge Jack Weil. Weil said during a deposition in Seattle that he has “taught immigration law literally to three-year-olds and four-year-olds,” and that “they get it.”
“I’ve been on this committee for decades—a lawyer for decades,” Leahy said Wednesday. “I’ve never heard such a stupid, stupid, stupid thing from a judge or anybody else.”
“I do not have an explanation for those comments,” Lynch replied.
“I know we all like to think that our children are precocious,” she added in jest, “but in no way does the DOJ feel that children at that age or children even older can and should represent themselves individually.”
That’s exactly what’s happening, however, in many US immigration courts, with the full knowledge and support of federal prosecutors. As the Washington Post reported last week, “42 percent of the more than 20,000 unaccompanied children involved in deportation proceedings completed between July 2014 and late December had no attorney,” according to the DOJ’s own figures.
Lynch claimed Wednesday that the department supports as a “policy matter” efforts to provide counsel to both children and others who don’t have lawyers. In some cases, she said, the DOJ relies on pro-bono labor and non-governmental organizations to supply representation. Lynch didn’t explain, though, why so many children still go without it.
“I do know that the department regularly pursues immigration cases against children including toddlers who don’t have lawyers, even though DOJ has the authority to make sure these children have lawyers,” Leahy pressed the Attorney General. “I think that’s a mark against this country,” he added.
“Senator I think you raise an excellent point,” Lynch said, adding that the department is “looking to find various ways to support” providing counsel to all children facing deportation proceedings. She said efforts include outreach to Congress to mandate it by law.
In 2014, the ACLU filed suit against the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that forcing children to appear in immigration courts without providing counsel violates federal law and the US Constitution. Filed in Seattle, the case involves 14 minors, including some younger than five-years-old.
It was during a deposition related to the suit that Judge Jack Weil made his statements about teaching children immigration law and having them counsel themselves.
“Frankly I think it is a bad, bad image for a judge who would say something that stupid, that reprehensible, to be the face of the United States,” Leahy said on Wednesday. At one point, Leahy said of Weil’s remarks: he “assumed, at first, this was a misprint.”
The DOJ has taken a hardline position in the Seattle case—one that belies some lofty ideals espoused by Lynch during the hearing.
“Nothing in the Constitution requires the taxpayers to provide counsel to minors in immigration court,” department lawyers said in a 2014 motion. The DOJ claimed that mandating representation could result in a “potentially enormous taxpayer expense.”
