Legal Beat
LEGAL BEAT . . .
Legal Beat...
CBP website and that each employee was expected to be familiar with them. Moreover, the CBP Officer testified that she had heard of the standards of conduct, and she did not deny attending the muster shortly before she married. In addition, the CBP Officer had testified that she saw herself in “big trouble” when she found out about her husband’s status as an illegal alien, and that she knew that his status affected her job.
As for the second argument, the Federal Circuit found that the CBP Officer failed to show that any other CBP employees married illegal aliens. The three employees the CBP Officer used as examples did not actually marry illegal aliens. In one case, an employee married a woman who had entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa and was not out of status at the time of the marriage. In another case, an employee married a woman who initially entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa but later applied for asylum, and her application was in the adjudication process when they got married. A third employee married a woman who had been given asylum and was not out of status at any time. Thus, the Federal Circuit determined that none of the three witnesses had actually married illegal aliens, as the CBP Officer had asserted.
As for the CBP Officer’s reliance on statements made by others, the appeals court said that the CBP Officer’s recollection of her conversations with the union president and two CBP supervisors differed somewhat from their recollections. In any event, however, the Federal Circuit stated that the CBP Officer could not rely on the union president’s statements because he did not have the authority to speak for CBP. As for the two CBP supervisors, the appeals court noted that their expertise was not in personnel matters, and that one of them told her to check with higher-level management. Therefore, the Federal Circuit determined that the CBP Officer understood that marrying the illegal alien could be a problem and that she did not rely on statements of CBP management with expertise in personnel matters in deciding to marry the illegal alien.
With respect to the penalty, the Federal Circuit stated that one of the major duties of a CBP Officer is to uphold the laws governing illegal immigration into the U.S. The court noted that while the CBP Officer had worked for the federal government for over 20 years, she was suspended four times during that period. Additionally, the
CBP Officer persisted in her belief that she had done nothing improper and did not express any remorse for her actions, the court noted. Accordingly, although the removal penalty was “harsh” in this case, the Federal Circuit stated that it was within the bounds of reasonableness, and ruled that the CBP did not abuse its discretion in removing the CBP Officer from her job.
The case is Olmos v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-3009, February 4, 2010.Court Holds That Taking Away Prisoner’s Dungeons and Dragons Game Did Not Violate His First Amendment
Chicago, IL - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a complete ban on prisoners playing a role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, and held that the prison’s ban did not violate a prisoner’s First Amendment right.
This case involves the role playing game Dungeons and Dragons (“D&D”). D&D is a fantasy role-playing game in which players collectively develop a story around characters whose personae they adopt.
Officials at a Wisconsin Correctional Institution took action to eradicate D&D within the prison. Prison officials confiscated a large quantity of D&D related publications from Kevin Singer’s cell, an inmate and appellant in this case. Singer had been a D&D enthusiast since childhood and has acquired numerous D&D related publications. He even handwrote a ninety-six page manuscript outlining the specific details of a “campaign setting” he developed for use in D&D game play. Singer ordered and possessed D&D materials for almost two years while in prison until a prison official received an anonymous letter from an inmate expressing concern that Singer was forming a D&D gang and was trying to recruit others to join by passing around D&D publications. These publications touted the “rush” they received from playing D&D. A prison official searched the inmates’ cells that were named in the letter and confiscated the D&D related material.
Singer used the prison’s complaint system to have his D&D materials returned, which was denied. Singer then brought action against the prison officials pursuant
