Immigration Lawyers Focus on Stephen Miller During Deposition

Pro-immigration attorneys seemed more interested in digging into details about President Donald Trump’s adviser, Stephen Miller, than addressing the actions of ICE officials in Chicago during the recent deposition of Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino.

Bovino was taken to court by activists who allege that immigration agents are employing excessive force against those protesting against Trump and supporting undocumented immigrants. District Judge Sarah Ellis, appointed by Obama, mandated Bovino to give a deposition last week, although it soon appeared to falter.

During the proceedings, it became clear that both the activist lawyers and Judge Ellis were primarily focused on uncovering communications between ICE, Border Patrol, and Miller, rather than on the activities of the Chicago ICE.

Justice Department attorney Sarmad Kojuste raised objections to any inquiries about Miller, claiming that he was caught off guard due to his preparation that focused on local issues.

Ms. Kojuste commented that she aimed to prepare Bovino for questions about local concerns, but the plaintiff’s lawyer overwhelmed him with a series of unrelated topics.

“Today, they inquired about their communications with Stephen Miller,” Kojuste told Judge Ellis. “They also asked about body cameras from Los Angeles ICE… I feel like a punching bag right now.”

It was perhaps expected that judges with left-leaning views would back the extensive questioning led by activist lawyers, asserting that all seemingly irrelevant queries held significance.

“For instance, the questions regarding communication with Mr. Miller could be relevant if they were indicating, ‘This is how we want this operation to function,'” Ellis noted. “… If Mr. Miller communicated anything to Mr. Bovino that could rationalize the use of force, then they can pursue those questions.”

Judge Ellis attempted to compel Bovino to report his daily activities, but her efforts were dismissed by an appeals court.

A three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Ellis behaved more like an inquisitor than a neutral judge by mandating Bovino’s appearance every day.

The appeals court remarked that Ellis’ ruling “places the court as a supervisor of Director Bovino’s tasks, interfering with the personnel management of the executive branch. These concerns are interconnected, leading us to believe that the order breaches the separation of powers.”