James Pittman: Welcome to Immigration Uncovered, the docketwise video podcast where we dive deep into the dynamic world of immigration law. I'm your host, James Pittman, cofounder of docketwise, and I'm joined today for episode 50. This is a special milestone, our fiftieth episode of the podcast. I have with me Rekha Sharma Crawford. She is a partner at Sharma Crawford, law firm and, the current treasurer of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Welcome, Rekha.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

James Pittman: Today, we're gonna be talking about the presidential memorandum, which is titled abuses of the legal system and the federal courts. And many people, including most immigration lawyers, see it as a threatening gesture toward both immigration lawyers and public interest lawyers in general. So, let's begin, Rekha, by talking about this memorandum. I mean, if we just look a little bit at the language here, you know, there's really two groups of attorneys that, are being specifically targeted, and one is lawyers in general who litigate against the federal government. This would include a lot of people in the public interest sector, organizations like the ACLU, many other organizations, including, some large firm pro bono, the, sort of programs where they file cases to enforce, you know, civil liberties and civil rights of individual people. That all involves litigating against the federal government. The second group are immigration attorneys and specifically called out were, again, pro bono, immigration programs of large firms, but also, attorneys involved in representing asylum applicants. But with the surrounding language see, let's look at the sir the actual language because it could actually, refer to any type of immigration case. So the presidential memorandum says the following. The immigration system, quote, is likewise replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms that undermine immigration enforcement. The immigration bar and powerful big law pro bono practices frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when seeking asylum. Rekha, your reaction to this language in the memorandum.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: I think it's outrageous. It's straight out outrageous. It is an attack on, access to counsel. It's an attack on a whole group of individuals, and and quite honestly, it's an attack with absolutely no evidence to support it. And so other than to do exactly that, which is to undermine the legal system and to try and, take away access to counsel, access to courts, and to threaten and intimidate people, I think that's exactly what this is designed to do.

James Pittman: Yeah. I mean, what strikes me about this memorandum is that, you know, it is actually clients who are represented by attorneys who are much less likely to get into any type of trouble as far as the, statements they make in their applications, as far as the documentation of their applications or allegations of fraud. I mean, we're being represented by a competent immigration attorney is actually the best protection that an applicant can have as far as putting forward a case which in in which they're they're less likely to be accused of making statements. It's really applicants who file pro se would be one example or applicants who are represented by people who aren't really authorized to practice immigration law. In my experience, that's where you actually see people getting into trouble with with making false statements. Would you agree?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, I mean, that's the whole thing. Right? This doesn't take and the tarot fraud, everyone knows, is a big issue in the immigration context with where you have individuals who are exactly that unauthorized, to practice law who step in and offer either, you know, low cost services, even though they know that people are not eligible for certain forms of relief or whatnot. But this memo doesn't talk anything about that. It doesn't speak in any way of protecting, the immigrant populations or or making sure that the courts are secure and are and and that the filings are are accurate and trustworthy. None of that. It's just a direct attack on the legal profession as a whole. But we're seeing that. Right? I mean, you're seeing that with with him going after big law, where he's threatening and and intimidating, law firms with the sole purpose of trying to bankrupt them. I mean, he's made it very clear that that's what he's doing. I think this is just yet another, arrow in that quiver to say, we're gonna try and take down the credibility of immigration attorneys, because this idea that it's rampant with fraud, well, there's no evidence of that at all. You know, I think the the intent of this memo is clear for any of us who are looking. But, you know, the way they do this, James, is they always kind of cloak it with this, you know, this overarching magnum, you know, this idea of, oh, we're trying to do this because we're trying to protect the system. When in reality, I like to say this is, you know, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing where you really know what the intent here is, which is to go after the attorneys because they know that in 80% of the cases where people are represented, they have a more favorable outcome than if you have someone who's not represented. So this is an effort to intimidate and and and take away, individuals seeking out access to counsel.

James Pittman: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it's it's it's another front in the war sort of against their their designated enemies of whom immigrants and, by extension, lawyers who help immigrants are are one of their of the parties on their enemies list. But I've observed that there's a particular tactic where, you know, that, the administration's been using where they take something that might have this a very tiny even a very tiny kernel of of truth in it, and they kind of enlarge it and make it elastic to justify all kinds of overreach. For example, you know, in the case of, in the case of dealing with the universities, right, there there might have been some legitimate concern about, you know, protests that where, you know, let's say, anti Semitic rhetoric was used or people people felt threatened on the campus, etcetera. That, you know, there could there's a a kernel of truth in it. But that, you know, with regard to the administrations where on the universities became sort of an elastic justification for, you know, dramatic overreach, dramatic levels of repression on the campus, silencing all kinds of people. And we're gonna talk about some of those cases, Mahmoud Khalil, Yonsei Oh Chang, and other people who the administration's targeting for their pro Palestinian speech. But it became a justification for just a broadside attack against the universities. Likewise, you know, here with the immigrants in general being an an enemy party, I mean, this this concern about fraud is a pretext for, you know, putting the screws to immigrants and putting the screws to, you know, anyone who would be so bold as to assist in the course of their professional work, you know, anyone who's on the enemy's list, in this case, immigration lawyers and, public interest lawyers. I mean, let's put it this way. There's there's, you know, been a few there in in the past, I mean, you know, you could there might have been a a few high profile cases of attorney misconduct. And I can remember, you know, many years ago, there was a case in South Carolina, an attorney, Manlin Chi who, you know, sort of was arrested actually for, you know, marriage fraud that facilitating marriage. Those cases are extraordinarily rare. Those, you know and most of the fraud comes from pro se filers or, as we've mentioned, notarios or other parties practicing the unauthorized practice of law. And if the administration were serious, we're actually serious about addressing meritless claims, about addressing, immigration fraud. It would have made much more sense to engage in a dialogue with the immigration bar who could have been its best partner to do two things. Number one, increase access to qualified immigration lawyers, and number two, clamp down on the unauthorized practice of law and therefore clamp down on meritless claims. That would have been a strategy, that would have made sense to address what's purported to be the topic of concern here, meritless James, not an across the board attack on the good name of many, professional attorneys. And we both know being in this field that immigration attorneys vast majority are extremely scrupulous with obeying ethical rules and being very and and counseling their clients to be very truthful with the government. But I wanna ask you, another question. I mean, have you ever seen historical precedents for such a broad based attack against the legal profession or legal practitioners?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: You know, I we when this memo came down, some of the, seasoned and senior members of the bar were quick to remind, us that, you know, this isn't unprecedented, that this happened, when there were, you know, back in the day, apparently, while they were there were other issues where immigration were, immigration was at the forefront and it was being weaponized, that it was it was not unprecedented for them to attack immigration attorneys. And so I think that but we know that. We know that for a fact because, you know, the board's decision, and I know that you're aware of my work on the matter of Lazada issue. But, again, when you go back and look at matter of Lazada even and you peel back those layers, it's it's the same rhetoric. It's fraud, and it's ripe with law fraud, and attorneys are are engaged in this kind of fraud even though in three decades, we don't have any evidence that shows that that's actually accurate. But if you go back and look, this is not the first time they've picked up this weapon and said, we think that immigration attorneys are unscrupulous and engage in in in just wide scope, you know, filings of fraud and whatnot. I think it is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation again because in reality, it's exactly right what you said, which is that if they really wanted to solve issues of fraud, they would help crack down on Notario fraud and those areas where there is, you know, lots of people who engage in the unauthorized practice of law. This does not address it at all. The interesting language here, though, which I found really curious, and I went looking, is in this memo, it says, I hereby direct the attorney general to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in, quote, frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation. And I thought that is a really weird term. Where did that come from? Well, it's interesting. Right? Because where it comes from, is it's a statute, 28 US code nineteen twenty seven, and it talks in terms of this vexatious litigation. And where this administration ran across this is in all of their So if you remember back, right, where they were filing and challenging the outcome of the election and they were filing these so called to sanction them for very much this conduct that was, you know, groundless litigation, baseless. It was unreasonable. There was no evidence to support Pittman. And so they were, you know, sanctioned over it, and I believe people lost their licenses. People were paid monetary fines. I think one one, individual paid a hundred and $75,000 in in fines for for exactly engaging in this kind of conduct. So I found it really rather amusing to say, you know, you are so unoriginal here that you're gonna go pick this up and use it here as a weapon because, well, that's what this is. I

James Pittman: think it's very deliberate because retribution is a a salient it's really the a a principle theme of of the current administration is getting getting even. And so if they, you know, had felt that they were, slighted and that phrase was used in the justification for sanctioning them, they're just gonna come back and do the very same thing. It seems it I I really get the impression just intuitively that they have a zero sum approach to rights, among the citizenry and and rights given to some citizens for in their mind as rights taken away from other citizens. I I I have an intuitive feeling that this is the way they think about this.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, I mean, you know, the fact of the matter is is is, you know, this president made it known in no uncertain terms that he was gonna go after anybody that had harmed him in any way that he thought. And I think you're starting to see this. You see this as an assault on the legal system. And and quite honestly, if you think about it, you know, they're setting up some of these questions in a way that will land before the supreme court because I think they look at the the legal system now as the final guardrail that's preventing them from being able to do whatever it is that they want because congress is doing it. Right? Let's be real. Congress isn't doing it. And so the only thing holding, the democracy and the integrity of the systems in place right now are the courts. And so an assault on the courts, and you're seeing it by going after big law. You know, here, not only is it the civil liberty, big law, litigators, but I think it's also if you look at impact litigation in the immigration context, who is usually aligned with us? Big law. Right? So I think this is designed to create that wedge to say we're big law as well. If it's if it has any kind of immigration criteria or any kind of immigration undertone, we don't wanna have anything to do with it. And the vast majority of immigration attorneys are small and medium based firms that can't really take on, impact litigation. I think that's also part of the the the goal here.

James Pittman: Right. And and and and you mentioned the judiciary being the last guardrail. Yeah. I mean, so far, we are seeing the federal district courts, you know, hold hold the sort of hold the fort down. They have pushed back in very significant ways against the administration and have frozen and slowed down a lot of a lot of actions. The appeals court, I mean, we've got, for example, the, the case on the Alien Enemies Act that we'll talk about in a few minutes. That's up on the appeals court, and we'll we'll see how they come down. The Supreme Court, you know, I people like to think that, the Trump administration has that in their back pocket because of the number of justices that Trump appointed and the overall, right wing or conservative bent of most of the justices on the Supreme Court. But they you know, I think that, especially the chief justice John Roberts really is not going to let the Trump administration get away with absolutely everything at once because if they were to do that, number one, they would also lose all their credibility as a branch of government, and they actually will consign themselves to being irrelevant. I mean, let's put it this way, and this is what I'm getting to, is the way the government is functioning right now is a very abnormal way. Congress has been dramatically sidelined. The only thing we've seen congress actually do since inauguration day was bring forward the continuing reg resolution to fund the government. The the executive branch is governing with executive orders unilaterally. The the Republicans in congress are really doing essentially nothing, and the Democrats don't hold, any majority in in either house in order to do anything. So we're we're in a very weird way where the executive branch is grabbing more and more power and trying to govern purely through executive fiat. The only other branch that is really active right now is the judicial branch. So, we're going to see, you know, if if the judicial branch, you know, sort of maintains its integrity. If it if it were to fail to, continue to be a guardrail, then we'd really be in totally uncharted waters. Then we really would be in a situation of autocracy.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, I mean, I think we're kinda there. When you have the deliberate, defiance of court orders, right, and we're now fighting about whether a verbal order and a written order are the same thing. I mean, in what in what planet and in which system do we say, you know, when the judge has, verbally ordered the government to do something that they now say, well, you know, we didn't have it in writing, so we don't really have to follow what the court said. I mean, that kind of defiance is unprecedented and, I think, dangerous. But, again, I think those are the types of things that they are deliberately doing in an effort to push the envelope to the Supreme Court. I think they don't care if they win at the the, you know, at the trial court level or at the appellate court level. I don't think they care one way or the other because that's not the goal. The goal is how do they get it in front of the Supreme Court where they believe they have the majority vote to try and push the envelope and expand some of these powers. I mean, quite honestly, when, they when the Supreme Court granted immunity as broadly as they did to the president, None of us thought that was gonna happen, but it did. And so I think I think that predictability, which, you know, is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, is, you know, the the the concept of stare decisis is all based on predictability. And I think right now, the biggest problem we have is is that it's not predictable.

James Pittman: Yeah. No. But I agree with you that we are we are dealing with an autocratic authoritarian government. I % agree with that. What I'm saying is just that so far, the judicial branch is holding to a degree. But once it gets up to the supreme court, like you said, in light of the fact that they did grant an unprecedented, really unwarranted and shocking level of immunity, we we we have to see we do not yet know when push comes to shove to what degree will the supreme court go along with some of this dramatic overreach, To what extent will they preserve their own prerogatives as a coequal branch of government and uphold what's actually in the constitution and not this executive overreach? I mean, that that is really the final act of the play that that remains to be seen before we are just in a sort of, like, in free fall. I mean, we're we're we're getting close, but that would really put us into free fall in terms of our democratic system.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: I mean, I think we're at a constitutional crisis. I really do believe that. I don't you know, there's some people who say, we're almost there. I know that, congress, I think it was, Schumer who was saying, well, I think we're almost there. I'm like, I we're here. I don't know what what you're missing here. We're here. I mean, think about this. If a if a lawyer stood up and said, we're not going to follow the order of a federal court, I would be held in contempt so fast. I wouldn't be able to I wouldn't even I mean, the ink wouldn't even be dry, and I'd be held in contempt. Right? And so the fact that that they're not doing that and then they're doubling down even more and then asking for the impeachment of things, and then you have congress and congressmen who are introducing legislation to impeach federal judges. I mean, we're here. I think we're here.

James Pittman: No. I mean, constitutional crisis is is a is a somewhat ambiguous term. I mean, different people are gonna have different specific definition of what amounts to a constitutional crisis. I personally believe we were in a constitutional crisis at the time of the first impeachment when the senate failed to failed to convict on on the basis of overwhelming evidence and certainly by the time of the second impeachment. We've had two impeachments of this president during his previous term in office in which the evidence was quite overwhelming, and the senate on both occasions failed to do its failed to do its constitutional duty by by staying on the facts and convicting. I I would date our arrival in a constitutional crisis from that point, and we've been in ever since, certainly, at the time of the insurrection and the failure to, meaningfully hold, Trump and company to account after the insurrection and and and and allow, this, you know, maneuver of running for president in order to avoid, you know, consequences for the insurrection. I mean, I think all of that was already the constitutional crisis, and this is just a new act in it. So so interpretations of the term will vary. But I wanna mention a little bit, at least about the, AILA since you're on the executive board of the executive committee of AILA. They have come out with a response, which is pretty strongly worded rejecting the dangerous threats on immigration attorneys. And, I mean, what do you think of AILA's response here? They say, for example, Ben Johnson says Trump administration has a long history of attacking judges who dared to dare to rule against them and maligning the character of anyone who disagrees with them. And late last night, just a couple days ago, the administration focused its ire on immigration lawyers and law firms who take on pro bono cases. This is a dangerous assault on the legal profession. And then it goes on. It says, AILA will continue to work toward the creation of a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system to defend the rights of immigrants, uphold the ethical obligations of our members, and challenge any effort that seeks to erode the principles of justice on which the nation was founded. Rekha, what do you think bar associations like AILA and other bar associations can do?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: I mean, at this point, you know, the issue is gonna be I think that looking at this, this memo I mean, the federal courts, I I don't feel like they are going to be quick to sanction and do some of this crazy stuff that he's asking for. Right? But that isn't, I don't think, where the administration's gonna go. I think they're going to try and use the administrative process where they have a lot more political sway and a lot more political might, to try and use those processes to really chill, access to counsel and also representation. Right? Because the issue is is is that they say that, anything can be I mean, anything can be deemed frivolous. Right? And if you do it on the administrative level as opposed to a federal court, I think the reality is is is that you already see in the immigration court system that it is not an even playing field. And so now for them to lean in and and and in some ways, the immigration court system is politicized. Why this is why Ayla and other entities for so long has been advocating for an independent court system. We haven't gotten there. Right? And so I think the real threat right now is gonna be what does the administration do with the powers that they have in the administrative arena that they really can lean into? I think the rest of this is is to create a wedge between big law and immigration, attorneys and to to to attack that for sure. But I don't see that a federal judge is gonna say this is a frivolous or meritless claim. I mean, those are those are more nuanced things that I don't think that a federal judge is gonna be as ready to jump on board with, because I don't think it happens in in the way that they are describing it. But in terms of the administrative issue, I think that's really where the first act of this will play out.

James Pittman: Well, let's talk about that because there's a disciplinary process both in EOIR, which is the immigration court system, and in the Pittman of Homeland Security, which contains USCIS. Each of those have distinct disciplinary processes for attorneys that are accused of misconduct. Now, let's, just get into this for a a second. So, usually, you know, in EYR, complaints can come from, you know, judges, from the DHS, from the client, from other parties, and they EOIR has a disciplinary counsel. In your experience with this, I mean, what are you what are you most concerned about? How might this play out in the EOIR system?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: I mean, I think the problem is gonna be is is that you have, the immigration judges and OCC, right, the attorneys that represent the Department of Homeland Security that are now going to be told by their supervisors, to act in a particular way. And I think that you're really not going to get a fair hearing. I think the threat is there that it's not going to be, you know, the things that are normally considered zealous advocacy are now going to be mis classified as something else and something more sinister. And I think that those are where those friction points are gonna come. And so, again, you know, let's say you have somebody who does removal defense work, and they're now trying to not only run their practice, which is normally gonna be a small or medium firm that is not only trying to deal with the the litigation aspect in front of immigration court, but now the attack on themselves. Instantly, there's a conflict there. You know, does that cause them to now withdraw from the case and leave the client without representation? I think that's a real threat. And then on on on with regards to to how these now that attorney defend themselves to say this isn't a frivolous filing or this isn't something that's been done in a in a sinister way. I think those are all stressors that are by design created to cause people to say, do I really wanna take this, or do I wanna go practice probate law that, you know, nobody, you know, is is now something that's not necessarily gonna be under attack? And it is. I think it's designed to keep people, you know, to really reevaluate to say, do I wanna do this at all?

James Pittman: It is really a case of trying to pick people off at the margins, and split split people from one another to make them more vulnerable. You mentioned an important point is is specifically calling out big law and their pro bono, programs for taking immigration cases. I mean, if they can drive a wedge between, you know, the big law pro bono and and immigration law and make the big firms not wanna take the risk of taking on those type of James, that's a that's a victory for them because they've further isolated immigrants from that representation. If they can put the fear into, you know, your immigration practitioners in the trenches, that they're gonna be, you know, sanctioned. They're otherwise they're gonna have the the government come down on them over anything and everything, even so things that are totally groundless. You know, you're you're placing a chill on the practice. You're discouraging people who might wanna get into this practice area. You're discouraging immigration lawyers from specifically representing in removal proceedings or or representing undocumented persons. You're encouraging other lawyers who, you know, might wanna do pro bono work for for immigration. And and you're you're further isolating, you know, the people who need the representation the most, the people who whose actual lives and human rights and civil rights are on the line here, in the immigration system. So, you know, by isolating those people, you're you're you're you're making them more vulnerable. And we've seen that also as a theme with the administration. I mean, the two the two sort of two of the most vulnerable groups in American society for are undocumented persons and transgender persons. And those are two of the at the top of the enemy's list, you know, two of the most vulnerable groups. And, you know, it's it's there's been an effort to politically isolate those groups to to make them more vulnerable. Now let me ask you a question from your experience. Certainly, the the and just for our listeners who are, you know, aren't familiar, the immigration court system is actually within the Pittman of justice. So the attorney general, who is currently Pam Bond, the Trump appointee, sits atop that and can actually pluck cases out of, the immigration court system and actually they call it certifying the case certify the case to the attorney general. And Pam Bondi could decide any immigration court case herself if she wanted to. My question, Rekha, is number number one, do you think we're have we seen that? Have you seen any examples of that? Do you think we'll see that? Number two, how much political influence, should we worry about from the AG in the onto the board of immigration appeals? Do do can the board members be easily fired and replaced with loyalists? That's another question. And third, the EOIR disciplinary process is presided over by the board. You know, are there appeals from the board's decision on on those disciplinary processes?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, so let me let me let me unpack some of what you asked. So, yes, they do they do answer to the AG. Now as of early this morning even, right, the AG was doubling down on, her mandate to say you should go and investigate filings of lawyers and and and look at what people have filed. In fact, they're looking back eight years at people's filings. So, I mean, the reality of it is is is that this is meant to create a chilling effect and to scare people, for sure. You know, the the the problem becomes is is that where you have the attorney general and we did see it. We saw this overreach by the part of the on the part of the attorney general under Jeff Sessions. Jeff Jeff Sessions certified all kinds of cases, even cases in well settled law in terms of what's a particular social group in the asylum context and whatnot. I mean, there were, unprecedented times where Jeff Sessions would use his certification authority to pull arcane cases that had been well settled or or were, you know, mine, you know, mine new cases and bring them up to to disturb the foundation of some of these applications and some of these principles. So, yeah, I think this is not new for them. Has she she hasn't started yet, but I wouldn't I certainly don't not anticipate her doing the same kind of thing. I think they have shown us that that's what they've done in the past, and they will do it again. So I think that is gonna come down. The firing of, the board members, you know, again, same kind of thing where they went in and mass cleaned out board members. We saw that back when I wanna say back in February, '2 thousand and '1, at the time when I think it was, I could get this wrong, but I think it was AG Gonzales. It might have been it might have been somebody else. But when they went in and they cleared out, the the, the Board of Immigration Appeals, but it was in the early two thousands. So that's certainly not unprecedented as as well. So, yeah, I mean, I think they're gonna do that. The other memo, is an EOIR memo that came out, which where they classified immigration judges as inferior employees. And I thought that was really interesting because, you know, Jeff Sessions in all of his, filings and rhetoric used to refer to immigration judges as glorified you know, assistant United States attorneys. They never really kind of got that, respect of an immigration judge. I mean, they use the nomenclature, but I think it's more for, the theater of it than it is really the power of it. And so in some ways, now you have a reversal of that where they're downplaying this to say, well, they're just inferior employees. Setting up the precedent says, look. If you're just an inferior employee, then we can get rid of you any way we want. So either you play by our rules or we fired you. Right? And we saw that implementation under the first Trump administration where they set up quota systems. And if you remember, they the the judges used to have this, on their dashboard kind of this monitor that used to to to keep track of how many cases they were approving and how many cases they weren't approving and and that kind of thing. I think that's wholly unconstitutional, because they used to tie their performance reviews with it. And I think, it's completely unconstitutional under an old case called Toomey v Ohio, which says that you can't tie a financial gain, to somebody who is in a in a, in a position of making some of these decisions. It was it went untested then. I think it it's probably gonna be ripe again for for testing those kinds of principles again. But for right now, do I think that, you know, they're going to lean in as hard as they can to try and say, this is our this is our game, our rules. You play by them or you're up.

James Pittman: Now the USCIS disciplinary mechanism and I personally, never saw anybody specifically disciplined just by USCIS. It was always by EYR. In your experience, is that a is that a common thing? Should we be expecting more of that? And what what power does USCIS really have to to discipline people? I mean, I've not seen them specifically disbar person from filing applications with USCIS, although I guess they probably do have that power. Should people be worried about that? And, have you have you seen them make outside referrals to state bars?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, you know, the New York bar just came out with a very, strong statement that says we stand with our attorneys, and I hope that other bars across the country will do the James. To say this is an assault on the practice of law, and we are going to stand by our attorneys. And I think that, you know, these systems exist. Like, if there's an unethical attorney, whether it's the agency, whether it's the client, whether it's another attorney, and certainly a federal judge, all of those individual state court judges. I mean, we there are mechanisms in place to address attorney misconduct. So this whole thing is now cumulative in a way that really is designed to say, again, if you are doing something we don't like, we will move you out of our way. And I think that is the message here, in no uncertain terms. And anyone who says that that's not the message, I would say, well, then why do why why do we need this if we already have systems in place that address unethical conduct by attorneys?

James Pittman: Now what can lawyers do to protect themselves? I mean, mention right off the bat, which is if you're in a state where you're worried that the state bar could be sympathetic to the administration and you're actually worried that if, let's say, you, you know, the federal government made some unfounded accusation, you're worried that you wouldn't get a fair hearing in the state where you're licensed, you might consider a state such as Oregon, which is, very easy to waive into. You can waive into and be admitted to Oregon if you've the the requirements are very fairly lenient. You just have to have been in practice for, you know, two years or something and have been a member of the bar for five years, something something like that. You can look up the requirements, but it's fairly lenient, and they don't impose reciprocal discipline. So in other words, even if somebody was disciplined by the the state where they were first licensed, Oregon would not impose a reciprocal discipline on that basis, and you'd still have a valid state bar. So that's, like, one technique is getting licensed in a particularly good jurisdiction to have an insurance policy, you know, in case of anything. But, in terms of, you know, taking some other proactive steps, whether it's, you know, whether it's creating a sort of protocol in your office in case ICE were to come to your office or you got a communication from the government and you felt that they were that you that they were investigating. I mean, can you think of some proactive steps that practitioners should be thinking about?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Yeah. So, I mean, Oregon's I think it's admission on comedy is is their their, process by which you can you can, ask to be waived in so you don't have to take take the bar exam, and it's based on your tenure of how long you've practiced and whatnot. But I think more importantly, to be honest with you, I think this is a time where not just immigration attorneys, I think this will be the a a misstep. I think we have to bind together as a legal profession. Because I think if it's an attack on one, it's an attack on all of us. And the reason I say that is is that what's to say that this same kind of, intimidation doesn't they don't now go after the environmental attorneys because you're making environmental regulations become invalidated, you know, you are going after those that practice reproductive rights or, you know, educational rights or all of these other things that they want to attack. You know, it's just a matter of time. I think immigration attorneys, unfortunately, is the lowest hanging fruit because there are some of these, historical things that exist like Lazada and whatnot where some of this they can go back and lean into. Plus, the vilification of the immigrants, is is, you know, one of their their touchstone, principles anyways, so they just lean into it. But I think the problem here becomes is is that what can you do proactively? I think proactively, I know for people that I've spoken to in myself, I've reached out to other members of other disciplines to say, look. You need to stand with us now. This is a time where we all stand shoulder to shoulder and say, you know, this is an attack on the legal profession. And some of these things that you're doing, you know, if you attack one field, it's only a matter of time that you will use the same weapon on other fields. So I think that becomes really important. I think for the state disciplinary advisers and and and and bars, I think New York should lead the way in the sense that they there should be some, outpouring of of these entities and these organizations to say, look. We already do our job. We make sure that our attorneys that are licensed in our states are acting ethically and are act acting in a principled way. And I honestly you know, quite honestly, this this this type of conducting, even the rhetoric of of, the AG herself, I think is unethical. I think that she it should be reported. I think the State Bar of Florida should step in and say, hey. Out of bounds, what are you doing? You know? You are you are the AG at the highest land. If nothing else, you should be held to the highest ethical standard. Right? So I think there there are some things there that, a more courageous, entity may be willing to do. I don't know if the the the Florida bar will do that or not. But, certainly, I think her her some of her comments and and her attacks on judges and and on the on the bar itself, I think it's questionable. But more importantly, I think the final piece I would say is this, is is that, you know, luckily or unluckily, but, you know, if you find yourself in a situation where you are having to face one of these things, it's the same advice we give to our clients, which is document, which is, you know, make notes. You know, show your work, so to speak, to say, this is what I said and did, and this is why I said and did it, and this is why a diligent and reasonable attorney in the same position would have given the exact same advice. So I think you kind of have to be, you have to take those kinds of principles and really absorb them into your practice to make sure that you are being protected in a way. And then, you know, talk to your colleagues and say, look. If they come, you know, in with a a search warrant into your law firm, can I call you? Because, you know, as a criminal defense bar, they are oftentimes very well versed with Fourth Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment rights that, you know, as immigration attorneys, we may not always have, that kind of working knowledge at our fingertips. So align yourself with those people in other disciplines who will stand with you to say, look. We see what this is, and we're here. Because I do think one of the things that happens in the legal profession quite honestly is is that if someone finds themself rightfully or wrongfully, right, as a subject of a disciplinary complaint, there's a tendency in the legal profession to distance themselves. People get scared to say, is this gonna splash onto me? And I think rather than lean out, my my call to the our to all of our colleagues is lean in because that's where the power is.

James Pittman: Yeah. I mean, there are some some ideas that, you know, for proactive stats, like, for example, a lot of bars, not if not all of them, you can submit a request for an advisory opinion. You know, if there's some particular issue that's bothering you, whether, you know, something falls or does not fall on the right side of an ethical line, if your if your state allows you to submit an advisory opinion, go ahead and do that. It's better to have a a definite answer ahead of time. If you have questions about liability, you know, like like you said, talk to talk to attorneys in other fields. Talk to criminal defense. Talk to civil liability attorneys, you know, speak to your insurance carrier. Because if this you know, because another thing is if if this climate of, intimidation were to continue, it could have I mean, I I was wondering. It just popped into my head that will this affect people's malpractice insurance rates, you know, if they get tangled up in some of these spurious allegations. I mean, if it it will if there's actual, you know, claims filed or, you know, things of that nature, they're subject to discipline or even put in disciplinary proceedings. And sometimes, even if you're ultimately cleared, it's the being put in the proceedings that's the the ordeal that takes the toll, even if you you ultimately don't get sanctioned.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: So, good. Goal, though. Right? That's their goal. Their goal isn't when their goal isn't to really punish the unethical attorney. Their goal is to get you out of the way or bankrupt you. That's their goal. Right? And if you look at the and I'll give you and I I I say that with a certain amount of evidence behind it. Because if you look at the way that the administration, treated the Paul Weisz folks, right, and if you look at the chairman's response to that where he says, well, you know, whenever when everyone in the legal profession said, why didn't you stand up and fight? And their response was, well, the goal was to bankrupt us. And so we did we took the steps to try and not go bankrupt. So that's what I'm saying is is that if that's the goal, then the outcome is immaterial.

James Pittman: If you give an inch, they're gonna take a yard. There really is there really isn't an alternative way other than to stand up when you're being bullied like that because to acquiesce in it, it it just continues. I mean, that's, you know, that's a truism, but it it's it's a truism because it's true. But I I'm wondering I'm I'm thinking that, you know, there there's a role for the bar associations and for ALA to play in putting together some resources with advice for people for how to take some of these proactive steps that we've been talking about, how to network with with other attorneys and so on. It would be good to have some of that compiled into some resources that people can have at their fingertips to protect themselves. Have have you is there anything you're doing differently at all in terms of the advice? Just, like, speaking broadly, since since inauguration day. So it's talking about the whole immigration enforcement environment. Are you changing anything or adding anything to the advice you're giving clients, for example, about traveling, about engaging in protests, about maintaining their status?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, I think, you know, I I I we have changed it in the sense that currently, at least, you know, we've been telling people, look. Don't travel if you don't have to travel, because the uncertainty is there. And sometimes the easiest way to clean up a mess is not to make a mess in the first instance. And so if there's not a need to travel, don't don't travel. I mean, of course, you know, especially in terms of, like, green card holders and the like, it's like they have a legal right to come in and go out of The United States. But I think because because of the uncertainty at this point, we've said, look. You know? If you don't wanna take the risk, don't take the risk. It's better not to take it than try and deal with it on the on the on the back end of it. In terms of other things to the clients, you know, we've been saying, look. You know? The reality of it is is is that we all have to kind of persevere here. And the issue is is that we are somewhat in uncharted territory, but we're also not. I mean, how do you prepare for an emergency? Well, you prepare by by putting contingency plans in place. And it's the same thing with with us is we look at it and say, you know, are we documenting everything? Are we making sure that our staff is aware of of the threat? Are we are we, are we making sure that staff is aware that, you know, at any given point, assume your conversations are being listened to? I mean, that's a real possibility. We saw that after 09 And I said and we tell our staff, look. Pretend that they're listening because because that's a real possibility, and we don't really have any reason to believe that they wouldn't.

James Pittman: Yeah. And especially with their social media posts. I mean, we've already seen a a rule, a a a notice of rulemaking come out that social media usernames and and, are going to be requested on USCIS applications. They're already requested on Pittman of State Visa applications, but that's gonna be extended to USCIS. So that means that the government is gonna be looking at people's social media profiles.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: I think they do now already look, and I think that they're I think the difference is gonna be that they're also gonna go looking at attorneys' social media posts. I think that's what's gonna change. Because, again, consistent with this memo, where it looks like, you know, are you doing are you engaging in anything that is contrary to what this administration believes is right? It's kind of again, these are all lessons I think they learn. Right? Because you've had judges rely on, mister Trump's own tweets and things like that, and I think they're gonna use that same kind of strategy because it's not original thinking. This is where they go. They say, oh, they use it on us, so we're gonna go use it on them because that tends to be how they how they function.

James Pittman: Yeah. And that's a real concern. I mean, just this morning, for example, in the Miami Herald, newspaper, they mentioned, one of the immigration lawyer groups, you know, that I'm a member of on Facebook. And that's a closed group only open to, attorneys, and this happened to be mentioned in in an article in the Miami Herald about immigration. And someone apparently, member of the group or someone who had access to the group supposed to be a closed group, leaked, some, statements or posts, the the subject matter of some posts that members had made, and that found its way into the Miami Herald. Now the person who who leaked that, it was found out who was responsible for that, and they were, you know, terminated from the group. But it just goes to show that, you know, you have to assume whatever you're putting on social media, even if it's in a closed group, is actually somehow gonna be visible to the whole world, at some point.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Yeah. I think the meme is is that, whatever's on social media assume is gonna be subject to a deposition at some point. So, you know, I think that's the thing is is that, people need to be really careful with what they're what they're doing and assume that, you know, it's all gonna be looked at. And, I mean, you know, for me, I'm like, look at it. I don't care. I don't really say anything unethical on them. Anything that I feel like I can't defend or or or can't, say is justified or reasonable or or any of those things. But I won't be bullied. I won't be I won't be intimidated, because I the way I look at it is is that, you know, that's what they want me to do, so I'm not gonna do it.

James Pittman: It's just the idea that, you know, you're saying something of what you think is a a closed group to colleagues, and then suddenly, you know, you find it in the newspaper. But but I do wanna talk a little bit about the the Alien Enemies Act and the use of this, you know, law from the seventeen hundreds, to circumvent the removal process. So the Alien Enemies Act, and it's been in the news continuously for the last couple of weeks, but, this is a law from, again, the eighteenth century that is supposed to be used in wartime under conditions of invasion and allows the the executive branch to round up, nationals of countries with which The US is either, being invaded by or otherwise in a war with and to, you know, to deport them. So this was used really to circumvent the, regular removal process. So there was a group of 200 or so Venezuelans or claimed to be Venezuelans who were renditioned, to El Salvador, a third country, to a prison in El Salvador. Now El Salvador is not their country of nationality, and, in, if this were in the regular course of the removal proceedings, you know, there's due process. There's a series of hearings. But by using this law from the seventeen hundreds, the administration was able to just get rid of these people by not even going through the regular deportation process. Now, you know, that was, that that was ruled against by judge Botesberg, and we talked a little bit about that, at the beginning. But, you know, the the that, the substance this substance of his decision that the administration likely exceeded its authority and, therefore, a restraining order had to be placed against any further such renditions because they're not even they're not even really removals. They're actually effectively military renditions to a third country is what they're actually doing. And that's actually on appeal now to the Circuit Court of Appeals. But, if we look at, that circumstance and we look at, you know, cases like Mahmoud Khalil, who seems to have been charged with a ground of removal, based on being a a someone whose presence in The US is adverse to The US's foreign policy. That seems to have been applied to him simply for purposes of his for a reason of his speaking out and targeting of some other students who have protested in favor of, Palestine, like Mahmoud U Thal and Yonsei O Ching. And another, graduate student, PhD level researcher at Georgetown was arrested. What's your observations on these cases in terms of what it means for the political environment, for the administration using laws other than the Immigration and Nationality Act to get rid of people, to meet their goals of just getting rid of people? What does all that signify to you about the current state of immigration enforcement?

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Well, I think it's dangerous. You know, when you look at the the Alien Enemies Act, they were they were projecting that they were gonna use this. I mean, they all but said it. I think that when they started talking, and this was even before the election, when they started talking about an invasion. Right? I always get curious. That's why it's kinda like we were talking about earlier that I got curious about the phraseology on this memo. It's the same thing. Because when they use, terminology that you're like, well, that's a why that's kind of curious. Why would they use that? Right? One of the things in order to in invoke the alien enemies, act as though you have to show there's an invasion. So so now are we gone. That's why you were using that terminology because you were starting to soften the soil of the of the rhetoric around it to say there's an invasion. So now we said there was an invasion, so now we can rely on this law. So in some ways, they are they are projecting some of this stuff, and I always say don't ever just take what they say as just, oh, they just happened to say that. I think it's very macrobelly, and that's very calculated in terms of why they use the words that they use. And so, I'm not surprised that's what they're doing. I I mean, we'll see what the what the circuit court does. I know that the argument was yesterday, and it was kind of a divided court. So we'll see how that how that comes out. But, you know, the reality of it is is I don't think they care because this question they want to take to the Supreme Court, and that's what they're setting this up for. I I genuinely don't think they care what happens at the at the, at the trial court level or the court of appeals level, which is why they so blatantly are doing whatever they want regardless of whatever the court orders, because I think, ultimately, they think the fight will be at the Supreme Court. With regards to, you know, what they did in some of these cases where, secretary Rubio is unilaterally taking away people's green cards and deporting people and placing people in removal proceedings, I mean, again, you know, you're talking about sections of the law that are not true and tested. And so that's part of again, part of their their playbook is is can we go find those provisions that have never been used or utilized very rarely, and can we use it in a way that they can recognize them to their advantage? And so, again, I think that question's gonna be one that they're gonna drive to the Supreme Court to get clarity on what is really the parameters of that authority under two thirty seven that allows Marco Rubio to unilaterally, without due process, revoke not just a student visa, which is baffling because the person's in The United States to begin with, but to take away their lawful permanent resident status for which an individual has a property interest in. So I think these are, you know, these are these are questions that they are deliberately picking. You know, we talked about the certification issue that will the AG just go randomly pick cases to certify to ask some of these questions. I think that's also what you're seeing in some of these actions that they're taking to try and say, we want to be able to know how far can we push the envelope. Can we just do whatever we want? And then, you know, by and then that's great because we already have immunity. So now can I just do whatever I want? And we've now truly gotten to a constitutional crisis.

James Pittman: Absolutely. And I will say one one other thing, before we've reached the end of the hour, which is between these, this sort of repression against students, and also the cuts and the repression against universities, between the the conditioning of federal grants to universities on the university's kind of kowtowing to the administration combined with the immigration enforcement against the students at these universities. These two this kind of pincer attack on, you know, education and international students, I will say, is is making The United States a much less attractive place for an international students to come. And I will say that I saw, again, in the news this morning that some other countries like France, for example, are starting to open up programs to try to attract some of the researchers and the the academic talent that is, losing its funding in The United States, to try to bring it over there. So we're having a we're gonna have a brain drain from The United States if this continues, both in terms of our our academic faculties and in terms of our, international students, which we've traditionally been able to track the best students in the world. But, it's gonna be a lot less desirable to from their viewpoint to to come here when research programs are being defunded and when they're being placed under sort of these draconian, regulations and and, you know, sort of denied, the rights to, you know, express themselves or otherwise, you know, speak their mind on on, issues of the day. So we'll have to see how that evolves. But, Rekha, I wanna thank you very much for coming on the program, discussing this critically important issue issue of utmost concern to immigration lawyers, to the legal profession in general. Thanks again, Rekha Sharma-Crawford, partner at Sharma Crawford attorneys at law and treasurer of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford: Thank you, James.