Audit of Foreign-Born Federal Judges’ Decisions

An examination of the rulings from all 58 foreign-born federal judges aims to determine whether these judges are more inclined to favor migrant legal claims and oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

The analysis compared the decisions made by these federal judges to those of their U.S.-born counterparts to assess how foreign judges measure up against the broader federal judiciary.

According to the findings of the audit, “Across the full 58-judge cohort, anti-border enforcement rulings average 61.9% compared to a 34.0% baseline across U.S. federal courts. Meanwhile, below-guideline criminal departures average at 45.3%, in contrast to a national figure of 31.0%.”

This study, conducted by the group Bench Receipts—which monitors the actions of judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs—sought to clarify if foreign-born judges tend to be more lenient on crime or more likely to rule against national safety and immigration laws.

The audit specifically focused on Article III judges, who are appointed by the U.S. president with Senate approval, exploring whether their foreign birth played a significant role in their rulings diverging from standard legal practices.

After analyzing the decisions of foreign-born judges against those of U.S.-born judges, the results revealed something surprising. It turned out that it wasn’t merely their foreign origins that influenced the rulings; it was primarily their previous job experiences and which president appointed them.

The audit indicated that most Article III judges appointed by Democratic presidents had backgrounds in left-leaning think tanks or social justice organizations, including the ACLU, or worked as public defenders. These roles often lean towards activism, suggesting that when they ascended to the bench, their legal decisions reflected those ideological inclinations, landing below the average baseline into activist territory.

Conversely, judges appointed by Republican presidents showed rulings that often exceeded the federal baseline, indicating a firmer adherence to law and order. As noted in the audit, “controlling for Appointing President and Pre-Bench Career reveals the true driver.”

Specifically, “43 of the 58 judges (74.1%) were appointed by Biden (28) or Obama (15), primarily from ACLU, NILC, and Public Defender backgrounds—who block border enforcement at an 80.1% rate. In contrast,” the authors stated.

For the Trump and Bush appointees—14 in total—the audit showed an average anti-border ruling rate of just 14.3%, along with a strong 86.9/100 Sovereignty Score, surpassing the baseline for U.S.-born federal judges in enforcing law and order.

The analysis highlighted the top five judges with the most anti-sovereignty rulings, all of whom were appointed by Biden or Obama, who frequently ruled against U.S. border sovereignty over 90% of the time and in favor of criminal interests more than 60% of the time.

Leading the list was Federal Judge Jon Tigar of California’s Northern District, known for his 94% rate of anti-border decisions while ruling 65% below crime guidelines. Tigar, a London native, was previously an Alameda County Judge and a Public Defender before being appointed by Barack Obama in 2013.

• 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

On the other hand, the federal judges appointed by Donald Trump showed the most pro-American rulings, including:

• 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 summary, the audit suggests that it isn’t necessarily a judge’s foreign origin that correlates with decisions against American interests; rather, it’s the strong ideological positions they held prior to their judicial appointments that tend to influence outcomes contrary to public safety and U.S. sovereignty.