Randel Johnson, a Distinguished Immigration Scholar at Cornell Law School, has raised an important question about the application of the Rule of Law in the United States government’s enforcement proceedings. In his analysis, Johnson argues that the government’s enforcement actions can sometimes overstep their bounds, leading to a lack of fairness and access to justice for those involved. This raises concerns about whether the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law are being upheld in these crucial legal processes.
The Rule of Law is a concept that is often talked about but can be difficult to define. At its core, it means that all individuals are equal under the law and have access to an impartial judiciary to address any grievances they may have. However, Johnson’s research suggests that these principles may not always be upheld during enforcement proceedings, which make up a significant portion of the legal activities in the United States.
Johnson’s analysis focuses on the enforcement of I-9 employee verification requirements under US immigration laws. Through his research, he found that enforcement officials often rely on unsupported legal theories to pressure individuals and businesses into settlements through inflated fines and threats of criminal sanctions. This heavy-handed approach can lead to a lack of trust in the government and a feeling of helplessness among those facing enforcement actions.
One of the key issues highlighted in Johnson’s analysis is the lack of access to a judiciary for many individuals and businesses involved in enforcement proceedings. The cost and delays associated with litigation can make it difficult for small entities to pursue judicial review, even when they believe they have been treated unfairly. This lack of access to justice can undermine the Rule of Law and erode support for the government among those affected by enforcement actions.
To address these concerns, Johnson suggests that reforms may be needed at the front end of enforcement proceedings, rather than the back end. This could include better training for agency personnel, discipline for inappropriate behavior, and changes to government personnel regulations. Additionally, strengthening provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) could provide a more realistic chance for small entities to vindicate their rights and hold government agencies accountable for their actions.
Overall, Johnson’s analysis raises important questions about the application of the Rule of Law in the US government’s enforcement proceedings. By shining a light on these issues, he hopes to spark a conversation about how to improve enforcement practices and ensure fairness and access to justice for all individuals involved.