<!–

–>

August 29, 2022

Here’s a hypothetical.  Sometime after October 1, 2022, a civil bench trial (no jury) is taking place in state district court in Albuquerque.  The judge will decide both the facts and the law.  The only people in the courtroom are the judge; the court reporter; the bailiff; the plaintiff; the plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. X; the defendant; and the defendant’s attorney, Ms. Y.  It’s a routine creditor-debtor dispute, where the plaintiff is asserting that the defendant breached a contract and owes him money.  One day has been allotted for the trial.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

It’s just before noon, and attorney Mr. X is almost done with presenting his client’s case.  Two armed men in uniform enter the courtroom and sit in the spectator seating section.  The judge notices the visitors, makes a motion to the court reporter to stop transcribing, and asks: “Gentlemen, may I help you?”  One man rises and says: “Your honor, we are from ICE.  We have an arrest warrant for Ms. Y.”  The man then sits back down.

The trial resumes.  At noon, the judge orders a lunch break and says the trial will resume at 1:30.  After the judge leaves the courtroom, Ms. Y is handcuffed by the ICE officers and led away.

At 1:30, everyone is back in the courtroom except for attorney Ms. Y.  The defendant rises and says: “Your honor, my attorney was just arrested by ICE.  She apparently is an illegal alien.  May I have a continuance?”

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

The judge commiserates with the defendant but says that it would not be fair to the plaintiff to grant a continuance, especially since it was foreseeable that an illegal alien attorney could be arrested at any time.  The now pro se defendant does his best to represent himself, and the judge bends over backward to be fair — but the defendant is no match for the plaintiff, who has competent counsel.  A substantial judgment is awarded to the plaintiff.  The judge recommends to the defendant that he immediately seek the services of a malpractice attorney.

Far-fetched?  Hardly.  There are currently eight states where illegal aliens can practice law (CA, CT, FL, IL, NE, NJ, NY, and WY).  Joining this dubious list on October 1 will be New Mexico.

There are federal civil and criminal penalties for knowingly employing an illegal alien.  Here is the statute.  8 USC 1324 (a)(4) provides for civil penalties and section (f) for criminal penalties.  So the Supreme Courts of these states are actively aiding and abetting the commission of a federal crime.

Let this sink in. The Supreme Courts of nine states know that it is against the law for an illegal alien to be present in and work in the United States, but they are saying, “We don’t care.”  So much for the rule of law in general and the Supremacy Clause in particular.

In New Mexico, this change was done, more or less, in the middle of the night with no legislative input.  Back in 2018, the N.M. Supreme Court asked for public comment about permitting illegal aliens to practice law.  There was then no public news on the subject until several days ago, when the Court simply announced that illegals would be permitted to practice law effective October 1.  All five justices on the N.M. Supreme Court are Democrats.  The last time Republicans held a majority on the Court was in the 1920s.

Can the public fight back against these courts, who are legislating from the bench and giving the middle finger to federal immigration laws?  Here are some thoughts.