Down
in
the
Southern
District
of
West
Virginia,
four
federal
judges
—
appointed
by
presidents
of
both
parties
—
have
spent
the
last
several
weeks
issuing
rulings
sounding
the
alarm
over
a
MAGA
immigration
initiative
dubbed
“Operation
Country
Roads.”
The
policy,
a
partnership
between
federal
and
local
law
enforcement,
reportedly
netted
roughly
650
arrests
in
January
alone,
largely
targeting
immigrants
driving
along
the
state’s
roadways.
What
followed
was
the
predictable
wave
of
habeas
petitions
from
people
(many
without
criminal
records
and
with
longstanding
ties
to
the
United
States)
challenging
their
detention
by
ICE.
What
was
less
predictable?
Just
how
blunt
the
judges
would
be.
Politico
reports
on
the
resistance
coming
from
deep
in
Trump
country,
and
what
the
judges
are
saying
in
West
Virginia
should
make
anyone
sit
up
and
take
notice.
In
a
February
19
opinion
Judge
Joseph
Goodwin
did
not
bother
with
the
usual
soft-focus
judicial
prose.
“Antiseptic
judicial
rhetoric
cannot
do
justice
to
what
is
happening,”
wrote
the
Clinton
appointee.
He
then
described
agents
“masked,
anonymous,
armed
with
military
weapons,
operating
from
unmarked
vehicles,
acting
without
warrants
of
any
kind”
seizing
people
for
civil
immigration
violations
and
locking
them
up
“without
any
semblance
of
due
process.”
He
didn’t
stop
there.
“The
systematic
character
of
this
practice
and
its
deliberate
elimination
of
every
structural
feature
that
distinguishes
constitutional
authority
from
raw
force
place
it
beyond
the
reach
of
ordinary
legal
description,”
Goodwin
wrote.
“It
is
an
assault
on
the
constitutional
order.”
In
a
subsequent
opinion
he
labeled
a
“final
notice,”
Goodwin
made
it
crystal
clear
that
the
court’s
patience
had
expired:
“The
Government
is
wrong.
Judges
in
this
district
have
said
that
over
and
over
and
over.”
And
then,
“If
officials
could
repeat
practices
already
determined
to
be
unconstitutional
and
require
each
affected
person
to
begin
anew
…
judicial
power
would
be
reduced
to
commentary. The
Constitution
does
not
contemplate
violations
in
installments.”
But
the
pushback
hasn’t
come
from
just
one
judge.
Judge
Robert
Chambers,
another
Clinton
appointee,
lamented
that
the
American
dream
has
been
“tarnished”
by
what
he
described
as
illegal
detentions.
Judge
Irene
Berger,
an
Obama
appointee,
accused
the
administration
of
showing
a
“lack
of
respect
for
the
law,”
noting
that
arrests
continued
at
a
rapid
clip
despite
multiple
rulings
declaring
the
practices
unlawful.
Berger’s
opinions
have
been
particularly
pointed.
She
pointed
out
“sloppiness”
so
bad
it
makes
you
wonder
what
else
is
messing
up.
Like
when
the
government
accused
one
ICE
detainee
of
having
marijuana
possession
convictions
from
2009.
“The
Petitioner
was
four
years
old
in
2009,”
she
wrote.
Berger
and
Judge
Thomas
Johnston,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee,
have
separately
called
out
the
bond
process
as
a
sham,
and
noted
ordering
more
sham
hearings
isn’t
a
remedy.
Gone
are
“immigration
judges
who
provide
neutral
adjudications”
replaced
with
bond
that
is
“systematically
denied
after
a
pro
forma
hearing
with
a
predetermined
outcome.”
Johnston,
for
his
part,
distilled
the
stakes
in
stark
terms:
“If
the
government
may
simply
seize
someone
without
due
process,
there
is
no
check
on
its
ability
to
seize
anyone.”
And
then
he
delivered
the
line
that
cuts
through
the
usual
culture-war
framing:
“One
might
say,
‘I
don’t
care
because
that
only
happens
to
THOSE
people.’
Perhaps.
But
what
if
someone
here
legally,
or
even
a
United
States
citizen,
is
afforded
no
due
process
after
being
seized
by
mistake?
Or
by
a
choice?”
“Fortunately,”
he
concluded,
“our
Constitution
demands
more,
including
the
rule
of
law,
as
opposed
to
the
rule
of
unchecked
executive
fiat.”
Judge
Johnston
is
right
about
the
constitutional
demands,
but…
is
anyone
in
MAGAland
listening?
Like
Judge
Goodwin
said,
“The
problem
lies
in
the
attorneys’
clients,
federal
government
actors,
who
have
offered
no
evidence
that
they
have
seen
or
even
care
about
the
legal
rulings
of
this
district.”
“The
disregard
for
the
law
shames
every
hardworking
public
servant
who
toils
for
the
benefit
of
the
country
and
its
people.”
And
the
only
comment
the
government
has
made
is
red-hatted
ragebait
that’s
wildly
out-of-touch
with
what
the
judges
are
seeing
on
the
ground,
saying
he
Justice
Department
“is
focused
on
law
and
order,
public
safety,
and
will
not
tolerate
any
violence
directed
toward
law
enforcement
officials
working
tirelessly
to
keep
Americans
safe,
despite
the
best
efforts
of
activist
judges
who’d
rather
see
violent
illegal
criminals
walk
free.”
Because
in
2026
judicial
due
process
concerns
are
synonymous
with
activist
judges.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].