Study Shows Foreign-Born Judges Rule Against Trump's Migration Reforms

An audit of decisions handed down by all 58 foreign-born federal judges looks to see if they are more likely to favor migrants’ legal claims and to oppose President Donald Trump’s border policies.

The decisions by the federal judges were measured against the decisions by the rest of the federal judiciary to see how the decisions by foreign judges stack up against the rest.

“Across the full 58-judge cohort, anti-border enforcement rulings average 61.9% (vs. the 34.0% U.S. federal court baseline) and below-guideline criminal departures average 45.3% (vs. 31.0% nationally),” the audit found.

The study was conducted by the watchdog group Bench Receipts, an organization that tracks actions by the judiciary, prosecutors, and sheriffs.

The audit looked at the decisions by federal judges who are Article III judicial appointees, or judges appointed to the bench by a U.S. president and approved by the U.S. Senate. The audit meant to answer the question of whether foreign-born judges were softer on crime and if they more often ruled against America’s safety and immigration laws.

The study was conducted by the watchdog group Bench Receipts, an organization that tracks the results of actions by the judiciary, prosecutors, and sheriffs.

The new study reviewed the 58 foreign-born judges across the federal judiciary, which comprises the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and a handful of others. The audit hypothesis sought to answer the question of whether being foreign-born amounted to a controlling factor for rulings that sit below the U.S. federal judicial baseline for rulings that tend to go against the law and against America-first policies.

However, after the rulings of foreign-born judges were tabulated against the average rulings of the rest of the U.S.-born federal judiciary, the question was answered revealing a startling result. It wasn’t being foreign-born that caused these 58 federal judges to make rulings that all too often put blocks on America-first and U.S. sovereignty matters. Instead, it was what jobs they held before becoming a federal judge and what president appointed them.

As it happens, the bulk of the federal Article III judges appointed by Democrat presidents had jobs before taking the bench in left-wing think tanks, or social justice organizations such as the ACLU, or were public defenders. These jobs all lean decidedly toward activist leftism and are jobs were “the law” is only used to push an agenda, as opposed to being used to adjudicate a legal issue. And the audit found that once they became judges, their decisions ended up reflecting that ideological drive, pushing their rulings below the average baseline and into left-wing activist territory.

On the other hand, the judges appointed by Republican presidents were found to have risen above the baseline with their rulings, and as the audit authors noted, “controlling for Appointing President and Pre-Bench Career reveals the true driver.”

“…43 of the 58 judges (74.1%) were appointed by Biden (28) or Obama (15), heavily drawn from ACLU, NILC, and Public Defender pipelines—who block border enforcement at an 80.1% rate. Conversely,” the authors added.

Meanwhile, “The 14 Trump and 1 Bush appointees average a 14.3% anti-border rate and 86.9/100 Sovereignty Score—outperforming the U.S.-born federal baseline in strict law-and-order adherence,” the audit revealed.

The top five of the most anti-sovereignty judges, four Biden and one Obama appointees, showed that they all voted against U.S. border sovereignty more than 90 percent of the time, and in favor of criminals at more than 60 percent.

According to the audit, the worst of them all is Federal Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California. Tigar issued anti-border rulings at 94 percent while ruling at 65 percent below crime guidelines. Tigar was born in London, England, and was an Alameda County Judge and a San Francisco Public Defender before being appointed too the bench by Barack Obama in 2013.

The next four of the worst of the worst include:

• Sparkle Sooknanan, born in Trinidad, appointed by Biden: 94% anti-border, 62% pro-crime
• Araceli Martinez-Olguin, born in Mexico, appointed by Biden: 93% anti-border, 63% pro-crime
• Myong Jin Joun, born in South Korea, appointed by Biden: 90% anti-border, 67% pro-crime
• Tana Lin, born in Taiwan, appointed by Biden: 91% anti-border, 64% pro-crime

The most pro-America judges are all Donald Trump appointees, and include:

• James C. Ho, born in Taiwan, Trump appointee: 5% anti-border, 12% pro-crime
• Joshua M. Divine, born in Japan, Trump appointee: 8% anti-border, 15% pro-crime
• Aileen Cannon, born in Colombia, Trump appointee: 10% anti-border, 19% pro-crime
• Roy Kalman Altman, born in Venezuela, Trump appointee: 11% anti-border, 18% pro-crime
• Kenneth Kiyul Lee, born in South Korea, Trump appointee: 12% anti-border, 18% pro-crime
• Rebecca L. Taibleson, born in Canada, Trump appointee: 11% anti-border, 16% pro-crime
• In conclusion, it isn’t necessarily being foreign-born that will lead to anti-American decisions by federal judges, but is, instead, the blatant ideological positions they hold before being appointed to the bench that will result in decisions that run contrary to American interests, public safety, and U.S. sovereignty.Follow Warner Todd Huston Facebook at: Facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston, or at X/Twitter @WTHuston