Joan Larsen On Reproductive Rights
Larsen Ruled To Limit Access To Reproductive Rights
Larsen Joined A Decision Upholding Tennessee’s Two-Day Waiting Period For Abortions
Larsen Joined A Decision Upholding Tennessee’s Two-Day Waiting Period For Abortions. According to the Courthouse News Service, “A divided en banc Sixth Circuit on Thursday ruled 9-7 that Tennessee’s two-day waiting period for abortions is constitutional, in part because the number of abortions in the state has not drastically decreased since the law was put in place. […] Thapar was joined in the majority opinion by Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Griffin, Raymond Kethledge, John Bush, Joan Larsen, John Nalbandian, Chad Readler, and Eric Murphy.” [Courthouse New Service, 8/5/21]
Larsen Penned An Appeals Court Decision That Required Title X Grantees To Physically Separate Abortion Services From Other Family Planning Services
Larsen Penned An Appeals Court Decision That Required Title X Grantees To Physically Separate Abortion Services From Other Family Planning Services. According to Bloomberg Law, “The US improperly revoked a 2019 Trump-era rule that prohibited taxpayer-funded programs from providing family planning services and abortion services at the same physical location, the Sixth Circuit said Thursday. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered a lower court to halt the US Health and Human Services Department’s 2021 rollback of the rule requiring financial and physical separation of the services, saying it likely violates Title’s X’s prohibition on funding programs ‘where abortion is a method of family planning.’ The decision by Judge Joan L. Larsen likely is a loss for Title X grantees, who must foot the bill for separating their services if they want to keep getting money.” [Bloomberg Law, 11/30/23]
Larsen’s Nomination To The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Was Celebrated By SBA Pro-Life America
SBA Pro-Life America Supported Larsen’s Nomination To The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to SBA Pro-Life America, “Today the national pro-life group celebrated the confirmation of to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: ‘President Trump made an outstanding choice when he nominated Judge Joan Larsen, a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia,’ said. ‘SBA List proudly supported Judge Larsen’s nomination. We rallied our members in Larsen’s home state of Michigan to call out pro-abortion Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters on their obstruction, and the pro-life grassroots won.’” [SBA Pro-Life America, 11/1/17]
Joan Larsen On LGBTQ Rights
Larsen Wanted To Limit The Freedoms And Rights Of LGBTQ Couples
Larsen Denied Hearing A Case That Would Have Granted Custody To A LGBTQ Parent
Larsen And The Michigan Supreme Denied Hearing A Case Where A Same-Sex Partner Sought Custody And Parenting Time Rights To The Couple’s Child
A Same-Sex Partner Wanted Custody Of Their Children But Was Denied Because They Were Not The Biological Parent And Not Married To The Biological Parent. According to Monroe County Lawyers, “Recently, in Mabry v Mabry, 499 Mich 997; 882 NW2d 539 (2016), the supreme court declined to hear a very similar matter where a same-sex partner sought custody and parenting time rights to the former couple’s child but was denied standing because that plaintiff was not the biological parent and not married to the actual parent. The lack of marriage made the equitable-parenting doctrine available to third parties for standing in custody and parenting time cases inapplicable in that case.” [Monroe County Lawyers, 5/21/18]
Larsen And The Michigan Supreme Court Denied To Hear Mabrey Case, Which Affirmed The Lower Court’s Ruling That The Same-Sex Parent Did Not Have Parental Rights. According to Case Text, “On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” [Case Text, accessed 6/26/24]
Larsen Opposed Giving Obergefell Full Effect By Denying The Mabry Case
In Doing So, Larsen Opposed Giving Obergefell Full Effect In Michigan. According to the Human Rights Campaign, “Larsen opposed giving Obergefell full effect as a State Supreme Court Justice in Michigan: In 2016, as a State Supreme Court Justice in Michigan, Joan Larsen joined a majority opinion failing to give the Obergefell decision full effect in the state of Michigan by refusing to reconsider a case denying parental visitation rights to a lesbian mother who would have been married to her ex-partner had same-sex marriage been legal at the time the couple was together.” [Human Rights Campaign, 9/25/20]
- In Obergefell v. Hodges The Supreme Court Of The United States Held That State Bans On Same-Sex Marriage And On Recognizing Same Sex Marriages Duly Performed In Other Jurisdictions Were Unconstitutional. According to Cornell Law School, “Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” [Cornell Law School, accessed 6/26/24]
Larsen Criticized A Move By The Supreme Court That Struck Down A Law That Criminalized Consensual Intimacy Between LGBTQ People
Larsen Wrote An Article Speaking Out Against The Supreme Court’s Move To Strike Down A Texas Law Criminalizing Consensual Intimacy Between LGBTQ People
Larsen’s Article Criticized The Use Of International Laws The Supreme Court Used In Lawrence v. Texas In Which The Judges Struck Down A Texas Law Criminalizing Consensual Private Sexual Activity By LGBTQ People. According to SCOTUSblog, “Larsen’s other writings, although few, also reflect a conservative bent. In 2004, she published an article in the Ohio State Law Journal on the Supreme Court’s use of foreign and international laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Suggesting that it ‘would be an understatement in the extreme to call the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas’ – in which the justices, by a vote of 6-3, struck down a Texas law criminalizing consensual private sexual activity by same-sex couples – ‘revolutionary.’ Larsen criticized the majority’s failure to offer ‘a thoughtful and thorough justification’ for its reliance on international law. ‘Until they do,’ Larsen asserted, ‘it seems we are better off to abandon this particular use of foreign and international law.’” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
Larsen Claimed The Majority Did Not Use “Thoughtful And Thorough Justification” For Their Look At International Law. According to SCOTUSblog, “Larsen’s other writings, although few, also reflect a conservative bent. In 2004, she published an article in the Ohio State Law Journal on the Supreme Court’s use of foreign and international laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Suggesting that it ‘would be an understatement in the extreme to call the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas’ – in which the justices, by a vote of 6-3, struck down a Texas law criminalizing consensual private sexual activity by same-sex couples – ‘revolutionary.’ Larsen criticized the majority’s failure to offer ‘a thoughtful and thorough justification’ for its reliance on international law. ‘Until they do,’ Larsen asserted, ‘it seems we are better off to abandon this particular use of foreign and international law.’” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
Larsen Sided With Anti-LGBTQ Preachers Who Harassed Pride Event Attendees
Larsen Ruled That Anti-LGBTQ Preachers Had The First Amendment Right To Harass Pride Event Attendees With Hate Speech
Larsen Joined A Majority Ruling That An Anti-LGBTQ Preacher Without A Permit Had The Right To Disrupt A Pride Event By Shouting Hate Speech Through A Bullhorn. According to the Human Rights Campaign, “In 2018, Joan Larsen joined a majority opinion, ruling that an anti-LGBTQ preacher without a permit had the right to disrupt a Pride event by spewing hate speech through a bullhorn in Nashville, Tennessee. The city sought to enforce a neutral permitting requirement that applied to all speakers.” [Human Rights Campaign, 9/25/20]
Larsen’s Ruling At The State Supreme Court Overturned The Conviction Of The Anti-LQBTQ Preachers Because Their Free Speech Was Allegedly Violated. According to the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, “BEFORE: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. […] ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. John McGlone and Jeremy Peters were ordered to leave a public sidewalk, or else face arrest, for preaching against homosexuality outside of an LGBTQ pride festival in downtown Nashville. Nashville enforced this restriction against the preachers because of the anti-homosexuality content of their speech. Because Nashville’s action does not survive strict scrutiny, it violated McGlone and Peters’ free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The district court erred in finding otherwise. We REVERSE.” [United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, accessed 6/26/24]
- John McGlone And Jeremy Peters Were Ordered To Leave A Public Sidewalk For Preaching Against Homosexuality Outside Of An LGBTQ Pride Festival In Nashville, They Were Convicted In A District Court. According to the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, “BEFORE: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. […] ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. John McGlone and Jeremy Peters were ordered to leave a public sidewalk, or else face arrest, for preaching against homosexuality outside of an LGBTQ pride festival in downtown Nashville. Nashville enforced this restriction against the preachers because of the anti-homosexuality content of their speech. Because Nashville’s action does not survive strict scrutiny, it violated McGlone and Peters’ free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The district court erred in finding otherwise. We REVERSE.” [United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, accessed 6/26/24]
Larsen Ruled Against Providing Protections From Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity
Larsen Affirmed A Ruling That Denied States Had To Comply With The New Title IX Rules That Said Federally Funded Programs Could Not Discriminate Based On Sexual Orientation Or Gender. According to People For The American Way, “In the Sixth Circuit case, Judges Nalbandian and Larsen held that the Department’s actions amounted to a new ‘legislative rule’ that changed the states’ obligations under Title IX without an opportunity for notice and comment. In the absence of a preliminary injunction, they continued, the states are ‘likely to suffer irreparable harm’ because they will be ‘forced to comply’ with the Department’s views, ‘contrary to their own policies’ that do not ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. They accordingly affirmed the preliminary injunction against the Department.” [People For The American Way, 6/18/24]
- Republicans Sued After The Department Of Education Moved To Offer Protections Under Title IX Against Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity In Federally Funded Programs. According to People For The American Way, “In June of that year, the Department published an ‘interpretation’ of Title IX that explained that in light of Bostock and the similarities between Title VII and Title IX, it would enforce Title IX to ‘prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity’ in federally funded programs. The Department provided similar guidance in a widely distributed ‘Dear Educator’ letter and fact sheet. None of these measures prohibited specific actions by any particular school or institution but provided guidance concerning future planned enforcement. Twenty Republican states filed suit in federal court in Tennessee, challenging the legality of these actions. A district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the states, and the Department appealed to the Sixth Circuit.” [People For The American Way, 6/18/24]
Joan Larsen On Law Enforcement
Larsen Did Not Hold Law Enforcement Accountable For Their Mistakes
Larsen Ruled That That Qualified Immunity Protected Several Police Officers Who Followed And Stopped A Black Man In Michigan
Larsen Wrote An Opinion That Held That Police Officers Who Stopped Christopher Bey, A Black Man In Michigan, Were Protected By Qualified Immunity. According to the ABA Journal, “In a 2019 opinion for the 6th Circuit, Larsen held that qualified immunity protected several police officers who followed and stopped Christopher Bey, a Black man in Michigan who drove with friends to a Meijer store and then a Walmart in search of space heaters. A dissenter said ‘the only crime Bey and his friends had committed was shopping while Black.’ Larsen’s opinion did allow the suit against the police officer who began following Bey and his friends because of the beat-up van that they were driving, according to a summary of the opinion by the liberal group People for the American Way.” [ABA Journal, 9/24/20]
The Case Eventually Settled With The City Paying $260,000 For The Actions Of The Involved Officer
The City Of Livonia Took Responsibility For The Actions Of The Officer Who Pulled Bey Over And Paid Out $260,000 To Settle The Racial Profiling Case. According to USA Today, “After years of legal jousting, the City of Livonia took full financial responsibility for the $260,000 settlement of a racial profiling lawsuit. Assistant City Attorney Eric Goldstein confirmed that the city paid the full amount last year because the other defendants in the lawsuit — Canton Township and township officer Adam Falk — did what they were supposed to do when arresting African-American Christopher Lee-Murray Bey, then 26, in 2013. Court documents filed in the U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court detail that Bey and some friends caught the attention of undercover Livonia officers Andrew McKinley, Eric Eisenbeis and Megan McAteer while traveling in a beat-up minivan to a Meijer store in the early morning hours of March 16, 2013.” [USA Today, 1/26/21]
Larsen Sided With Officers Who Shot A Schizophrenic Man Who Was Unresponsive
Law Enforcement Officers Used Force Against A Man Who Was Unresponsive
Police Shot And Tasered A Schizophrenic Man Who Was Unresponsive. According to Justia, “On the day the events at issue occurred, Plaintiff Ronald ‘Ronnie’ Graves was experiencing an episode of severe mental illness. In a delusional state, he attacked his grandmother with a knife—a crime for which he was eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity. […] When deputies entered Graves’s trailer, they found Graves sitting still in the bathtub, with his legs dangling over the side of the tub. Graves’s eyes were open, but he was completely nonresponsive to the commands of the deputies. Graves then raised his fist, which contained an unknown small, dark object. One of the responding officers, purportedly perceiving a threat to himself, shot at Graves but missed. Another, purportedly perceiving a threat to his partner, shot at Graves twice with an AR-15. One of the bullets hit Graves in the face, leading to serious facial disfigurations. Several seconds later, a third officer tased Graves.” [Justia, accessed 6/26/24]
The United States Court Of Appeals Sixth Circuit Ruled That The Involved Officers Did Not Have Qualified Immunity
The Majority Remanded To The District Court The Case Regarding The Officers Involved For Further Proceedings, Essentially Removing Their Qualified Immunity. According to Justia, “For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the claims against Sergeant Hedger for supervisory liability and for failure to protect against the use of force. We reverse the district court’s order as to the individual liability claims against Sergeant Hedger, Deputy Myers, and Deputy Potratz, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [Justia, accessed 6/26/24]
Larsen Dissented From The Majority Ruling That The Officers Did Not Have Qualified Immunity
Larsen Wrote In A Dissenting Opinion That She Believed The Majority Erred In Ruling That The Officers Did Not Have Qualified Immunity. According to Justia, “LARSEN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. In qualified immunity cases, our ultimate inquiry is not whether the officers in question acted reasonably; it is instead whether existing law established ‘beyond debate’ that they acted unreasonably. City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 504 (2019) (per curiam) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 581 (2018)). And although we must construe the facts in the light most favorable to Graves, the objective reasonableness of the officers’ actions is “a pure question of law” that is for the court to decide, not a jury. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 n.8 (2007). […] I disagree, however, with the majority opinion’s denial of qualified immunity to the three officers for their uses of force.” [Justia, accessed 6/26/24]
Joan Larsen On Workers’ Rights
Larsen Did Not Support Workers’ Rights
Larsen Did Not Allow A City Worker To Tell Her Story To A Jury
Natasha Henderson Was Fired Days After She Reported That Flint Mayor Karen Weaver Was Moving Donations Away From A City Approved Fund
Henderson Worked As The City Administrator Of Flint, Michigan, She Said That She Was Fired In Retaliation For Reporting Potentially Illegal Conduct By The Mayor. According to People For The American Way, “Natasha Henderson worked as the city administrator of Flint, Michigan, when it was under state-controlled receivership. She alleged that in 2016, she was fired in retaliation for reporting potentially illegal conduct by the mayor, in violation of Michigan’s whistleblower-protection law and her First Amendment speech rights.”[People For The American Way, 10/17/18]
Three Days After Henderson Reported That Weaver Was Redirecting Funds To An Organization She Formed, She Was Fired. According to People For The American Way, “City officials had requested that any private donations to help those affected by the lead crisis be made to a nonprofit fund administered by the Community Foundation of Greater Flint. Henderson learned that Mayor Karen Weaver was directing staff to funnel offered donations away from the city-approved fund and instead into a 527 organization that she had formed on her own. Henderson felt personally obligated to report this to the interim chief legal officer, Anthony Chubb. Three days later, the mayor met with Chubb and the city’s HR officer and Henderson was given a termination letter with no explanation.” [People For The American Way, 10/17/18]
In A Dissenting Opinion, Larsen Wrote That Henderson Did Not Have Enough Evidence The Mayor Knew About Her Complaint
Larsen, In A Break From The Majority That Allowed The Case To Go Forward, Said Henderson Did Not Have Evidence The Mayor Knew About Her Accusation At The Time Of Her Firing. According to People For The American Way, “A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled that her case could go to trial, but Trump judge Joan Larsen wrote a dissent that—if it became law—would make it extremely difficult for a fired whistleblower to ever make their case to a jury of their peers, both in public and in private employment. […]Larsen would have prevented Henderson from making her case to a jury because, according to Larsen, Henderson hadn’t presented enough evidence that the mayor even knew about the accusation at the time of the firing. Judge Larsen relied on Chubb’s testimony that he had not told the mayor about it until after the firing. But rather than let a jury decide the factual question of timing and motive, as the other two judges directed, Larsen arrogated this role to herself.” [People For The American Way, 10/17/18]
Larsen Favored Denying A Worker Disability Rights
Susan Card Was Diagnosed With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia And Was Told To Go On Disability, But Principal Life Denied Card Any Short-Term Disability Benefits
Card Was Diagnosed With Leukemia By Her Doctor And Was Told To Go On Disability, However Principal Life Denied Her Any Short-Term Disability Benefits. According to People For The American Way, “Susan Card worked as a licensed practical nurse at a long-term care center in Maine. In February 2013, Card’s primary care physician referred her to an oncologist, who diagnosed her as suffering from chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Over the next several months, she experienced worsening and chronic fatigue and exhaustion, which her doctor determined, based on bloodwork and examination, was caused by her disease. He concluded that ‘she needs to go out on disability.’ […] Several months later, Principal Life denied Card any short-term disability benefits.” [People For The American Way, 12/2/19]
Card Sued For Her Benefits And Eventually The Sixth District Remanded Her Case To Have The Insurance Company Reconsider Her Claim
Card Sued Principal Life And Lost At District, However The Sixth Circuit Remanded The Case To The District Court To Have The Insurance Company Reconsider Card’s Claims. According to People For The American Way, “In 2015, Ms. Card sued Principal Life in federal court under a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which allows beneficiaries of certain insurance plans to recover benefits due to them that have been denied. Although the district court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, the majority of a 3-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed. The majority explained that Principal Life’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a ‘reasoned explanation’ based on ‘substantial evidence’ for its actions, and remanded the case to the district court to have the insurance company reconsider Ms. Card’s claims.” [People For The American Way, 12/02/19]
Larsen Claimed That The Insurance Company’s Decision To Completely Deny Disability Benefits To A Woman With Leukemia Should Be Upheld
Larsen Wrote In a Dissent That Card’s Denial Was Based On Paper Reviews Of Her Case By Several Specialists And That Was Sufficient. According to People For The American Way, “Trump 6th Circuit judge Joan Larsen dissented from an October decision in Card v. Principal Life Ins. Co. and claimed that an insurance company’s decision to completely deny disability benefits to a woman with leukemia should be upheld. The majority explained that the insurance company’s denial of her claim was arbitrary and capricious, and that she should have another opportunity to demonstrate that she should have received disability benefits under the insurance policy. […] Larsen dissented, however, asserting that Principal Life’s denial should have been upheld. She claimed that the denial was based on paper reviews of Ms. Card’s case by several specialists, which was sufficient.” [People For The American Way, 12/02/19]
Larsen Ruled To Allow A Company To Offset Workers’ Compensation Costs With An Employee’s Pension
The Michigan Supreme Court Overturned A Ruling That Protected The Benefits Of Clifton Arbuckle, A GM Worker Who Was Injured On The Job
The Michigan Supreme Court Ruled That General Motors Could Reduce Costs Of Paying Injured Workers By Coordinating Disability Pension And Workers’ Compensation Benefits. According to the Detroit Free Press, “The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday ruled that General Motors could reduce costs of paying injured workers by coordinating disability pension and workers’ compensation benefits. The ruling reverses a decision last year by an appellate court that protected the full benefits due to the late Clifton Arbuckle, a former GM worker who was injured on the job in 1991.” [Detroit Free Press, 7/15/16]
This Ruling Overturned A Previous One That Protected The Benefits Of Arbuckle, A GM Worker Who Was Injured On The Job In 1991. According to the Detroit Free Press, “The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday ruled that General Motors could reduce costs of paying injured workers by coordinating disability pension and workers’ compensation benefits. The ruling reverses a decision last year by an appellate court that protected the full benefits due to the late Clifton Arbuckle, a former GM worker who was injured on the job in 1991.” [Detroit Free Press, 7/15/16]
Larsen Opined That Arbuckle’s Benefits Were Not Protected
Larsen Wrote The Opinion For The Ruling, She Said Arbuckle’s Benefits Were Not Protected “Because The Parties’ Collective-Bargaining Agreements And The Subsequent Modifications To Them,” According to the Detroit Free Press, “Justice Joan Larsen, who wrote Friday’s opinion, said, the automaker ‘may coordinate Arbuckle’s disability pension benefits because the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements and the subsequent modifications to them did not vest Arbuckle’s right to uncoordinated benefits.’” [Detroit Free Press, 7/15/16]
Larsen Joined A Ruling That Denied Workers Their Cost-Of-Living Benefits
The Tennessee Valley Authority Cut Cost-Of-Living Benefits For The Board Of The Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System Which Was Followed By A Lawsuit. According to Case Text, “The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) provides funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System (‘the Plan’). A seven-member board (‘the Board’) administers the Plan and manages its assets. And the Plan, in turn, provides defined benefits to participants. That means the Plan, by way of the TVA’s contributions, pays a pension benefit to participants in a defined amount. As is key here, the benefit includes a cost-of-living adjustment. […] In 2009, the Plan found itself in financial trouble. Thanks in no small part to the recession, the Plan’s liabilities exceeded its assets and it needed to make some changes to ensure its long-term stability. So the Board cut some benefits. These cuts included temporarily lowering cost-of-living adjustments while also increasing the age at which certain Plan participants would first become eligible to receive cost-of-living adjustments. This litigation followed.” [Case Text, accessed 6/26/24]
Larsen Joined The Majority Opinion That Ruled The Board Had No Standing And Affirmed A Lower Court Ruling That They Suffered No Injury. According to Case Text, “THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which LARSEN, J., joined. […] Because Plaintiffs have suffered no injury-in-fact, they have no standing, and we have no jurisdiction over their accounting claim. We AFFIRM the district court’s ruling that the Board gave proper notice of the 2009 amendments, VACATE its ruling with respect to Plaintiffs’ accounting claim, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the accounting claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” [Case Text, accessed 6/26/24]
Joan Larsen On Immigration
Larsen Ruled To Deport An Immigrant Seeking Asylum
Larsen Upheld The Deportation Of An Immigrant That Sought Asylum
Luis Eduardo Cuellar Garcia Left El Salvador For The U.S. Where He Was Designated A Special Immigrant Juvenile
Garcia Arrived To The U.S. By Himself At The Age Of 17, He Was Designated As An Unaccompanied Alien Child And Was Designated A Special Immigrant Juvenile. According to People For The American Way, “Luis Eduardo Cuellar Garcia fled to the United States by himself to escape ‘rampant crime and violence’ and gang warfare in his native El Salvador at the age of seventeen. He was designated as an ‘unaccompanied alien child’ and, after a Texas juvenile court found that he should not be returned to El Salvador because he was receiving ‘insufficient parental protection from gang attacks, was designated a ‘Special Immigrant Juvenile.’” [People For The American Way, 7/23/20]
Garcia Was Deported Under A Trump Administration Policy
Due To A New Policy Adopted Under The Trump Administration Garcia Was Denied His Asylum Claim And Deported. According to People For The American Way, “Without notice, the government applied a ‘new, unwritten and informal’ policy to Cuellar-Garcia, and argued that he must adjudicate his asylum claim in immigration court, rather than with USCIS. Based on the new policy adopted under the Trump Administration, the government asked that the immigration judge reconsider his decision to decline jurisdiction over Cuellar-Garcia. The immigration judge promptly did so, denied the asylum claim, and deported Cuellar Garcia in June 2019.” [People For The American Way, 7/23/20]
Larsen Denied Garcia’s Appeal For A Review Because He Was Not An Unaccompanied Alien Child
Larsen Joined A Ruling That Denied Garcia’s Appeal Because He Was Not An Unaccompanied Alien Child Who Applied For Asylum. According to People For The American Way, “Cuellar Garcia had sought to stay and contest the deportation order against him. His request for a stay was denied, as was his petition for review in a 2-1 decision by Judges Thapar and Larsen in June 2020. Judge Thapar summarily ruled against Cuellar Garcia’s claim that he should have received Special Immigrant Juvenile protections with USCIS, peremptorily holding that an immigrant like him must ‘be an ‘unaccompanied alien child’ when he applies for asylum,’ which was not the case here.” [People For The American Way, 7/23/20]
Joan Larsen On Torture
Larsen Was In Favor Of Expanding The Power Of The Executive Branch To Torture And Limit The Legal Rights Of Captured Detainees
Larsen Supported The Executive Branch Being Able To Torture U.S. Detainees In The Name Of Stopping Future Terrorist Attacks
Larsen Wrote An Op-Ed Opposing An Amendment That Banned The Torture Of U.S. Detainees Because It Would Undermine Bush’s Authority To Supervise The Unitary Executive Branch
Larsen’s Op-Ed Defended Bush’s Use Of Signing Statements To Ignore An Amendment That Would Bar U.S. Officials From Torturing Detainees. According to SCOTUSblog, “And in a 2006 op-ed for The Detroit News, Larsen defended then-President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements against a resolution by the American Bar Association that decried them as ‘contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.’ Those statements had included one that accompanied Bush’s signature on legislation, introduced by Sen. John McCain, that would bar U.S. officials from torturing detainees; Bush had indicated that he could waive the ban to protect the country from terrorist attacks.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
- Bush Issued A Signing Statement That Rejected A McCain Amendment That Banned The Torture Of U.S. Detainees Anywhere In The World, Bush Argued It Would Not Allow Him To Protect The U.S. From Future Terror Attacks. According to ProPublica, “President Bush has vetoed fewer bills than any president since Warren G. Harding, but not because his views always jibe with Congress. He prefers a suppler, quieter tool that can’t be overturned by congressional majorities: the signing statement. […] One notorious statement rejected the McCain amendment’s provision banning the ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’ of detainees in U.S. custody, anywhere in the world. Bush backed Sen. John McCain and signed the law, but in his attached statement, argued that the provision would undermine his authority ‘to supervise the unitary executive branch’ and his ability to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks.” [ProPublica, 1/7/09]
Larsen On Bush Ignoring The Anti-Torture Amendment: “If Circumstances Arose In Which The Law Would Prevent Him From Protecting The Nation, He Would Choose The Nation Over The Statute.” According to SCOTUSblog, “Larsen wrote that the ‘presence of a signing statement only gives notice of the president’s view of his constitutional commitment, and giving notice is usually thought to be a good thing.’ Addressing the anti-torture signing statement, Larsen interpreted Bush’s comments to signal that, ‘if circumstances arose in which the law would prevent him from protecting the nation, he would choose the nation over the statute’ – an expansive view of the president’s power.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
Larsen Co-Authored A Memo Providing Legal Justification For Torture
Larsen Worked For The Office Of Legal Counsel During The Bush Administration, Which Authored Memos That Provided Advice On And Justification For Interrogation Techniques. According to SCOTUSblog, “After a stint in private practice in the Washington office of Sidley Austin, Larsen served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration. Larsen worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to the president and the executive branch. During Larsen’s time at OLC, other lawyers in the office authored memos that provided advice on and justification for interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
Larsen Said She Had Not Played Any Role In The Creation Of The Memos But It Was Later Revealed That She Co-Authored A Memo That Addressed Whether Detainees In The War On Terror Could Go To Court To Challenge Their Detention. According to SCOTUSblog, “When Michigan Governor Rick Snyder nominated her to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court in 2015, Larsen told reporters that she had not played any role in the creation of the memos, explaining that ‘those national security measures in the Justice Department were classified.’ Larsen apparently served as co-author of a March 2002 memo that addressed whether detainees in the war on terror could go to court to challenge their detention, but the memo itself has not been made public.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/9/17]
Joan Larsen On Education
Larsen Wanted To Push A Landmark Education Case Through The Courts Again
Larsen Wanted To Bring A Landmark Case That Recognized A Right To Basic Education Before The Full Bench Of The Sixth Circuit
Students At Detroit’s Worst Performing Schools Claimed That Conditions At The Schools Were So Poor That Children Were Unable To Attain An Education And Achieve Literacy, Eventually Whitmer Announced A Settlement Of The Lawsuit. According to the Network For Public Health law, “The trial court had dismissed all claims brought by students who matriculated into the Detroit public school system. Plaintiffs, students at Detroit’s worst-performing schools, claimed that conditions at the schools were so poor that children were unable to attain an education and achieve literacy. The three-judge Sixth Circuit panel revived the case (with a 2-1 vote) and sent it back for trial, finding that there is a fundamental right to a basic education that allows a student to achieve literacy. In lieu of trial, on May 14, Governor Whitmer announced a settlement of the lawsuit.” [Network For Public Health Law, accessed 6/26/24]
- With Their Decision The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Recognized A Federal Constitutional Right To A Basic Minimum Education And Access To Literacy. According to the Network For Public Health law, “Gary B. v. Whitmer (U.S. Court of Appeals – Sixth Circuit, April 23, 2020): In a landmark decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a federal constitutional right to a basic minimum education and access to literacy. In doing so, the court identified the substantive due process right to a basic education as a fundamental right.” [Network For Public Health Law, accessed 6/26/24]
The Full Sixth Circuit, Larsen Included, Vacated The Previous Decision And Set The Case For A Hearing
Larsen, As Part Of The Full Sixth Circuit, Vacated The Three-Judge Decision And Set The Case For Hearing Before The Sixth Circuit’s Full Panel Of Judges. According to the Network For Public Health law, “Subsequently, the full Sixth Circuit vacated the three-judge decision and set the case for hearing before the Sixth Circuit’s full panel of judges. The State, the city of Detroit, and the plaintiffs argue that the case is moot because of the settlement.” [Network For Public Health Law, accessed 6/26/24]