Audit Findings on Foreign-Born Federal Judges’ Decisions

An examination of rulings made by all 58 foreign-born federal judges is underway to determine if these judges are more inclined to support migrants’ legal claims while opposing former President Donald Trump’s border policies.

The analysis compares the decisions of these judges with those made by their peers in the federal judiciary to see how their rulings measure up against the overall trend.

The audit revealed intriguing statistics: “Across the full 58-judge cohort, anti-border enforcement rulings average 61.9% (versus the 34.0% U.S. federal court baseline) and below-guideline criminal departures average 45.3% (compared to 31.0% nationally),” the findings indicated.

This study was conducted by the watchdog organization Bench Receipts, which monitors the activities of the judiciary, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials.

The audit focused specifically on Article III judges, those appointed by a U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate. The aim was to assess whether foreign-born judges tended to show leniency towards crime and ruled more often against the country’s safety and immigration laws.

The findings suggested that it wasn’t necessarily being foreign-born that influenced their rulings to frequently block America-first initiatives or U.S. sovereignty matters. Instead, it appears that prior professional backgrounds and the presidents who appointed them played a crucial role.

Many of the federal Article III judges nominated by Democrat presidents came from left-leaning organizations or positions, such as think tanks associated with social justice causes or public defender roles. These roles typically lean toward a more activist approach, where “the law” is utilized to further certain agendas rather than simply addressing legal matters. This, as the audit found, reflected in their decisions, which often fell below the average baseline into more partisan territory.

Conversely, judges appointed by Republican presidents tended to perform better by exceeding the baseline with their rulings. The authors of the audit emphasized that “controlling for Appointing President and Pre-Bench Career reveals the true driver” behind these rulings.

Interestingly, “43 of the 58 judges (74.1%) were appointed by Biden (28) or Obama (15), and are predominantly from backgrounds associated with ACLU, NILC, and public defenders—who block border enforcement at an 80.1% rate,” the audit stated.

In comparison, appointees from Trump and one from Bush had a much lower rate of anti-border decisions, averaging 14.3%, with an impressive 86.9/100 Sovereignty Score, thus performing better when it comes to strict adherence to law and order.

The audit highlighted the five judges who were most opposed to U.S. sovereignty, with four appointed by Biden and one by Obama, who consistently voted against U.S. border policies more than 90 percent of the time, and favored criminal defendants over 60 percent of the time.

Among them, Federal Judge Jon Tigar from the Northern District of California led the pack, with 94 percent of his rulings against border enforcement and 65 percent below crime guidelines. Tigar, originally from London, had previously served as an Alameda County Judge and a San Francisco Public Defender before his appointment 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 most supportive of American interests were judges appointed by Donald Trump, 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 conclusion, the findings suggest that it is not merely being foreign-born that leads to decisions against American interests, but rather the specific ideological beliefs held by these judges prior to their appointments, which significantly affect their judicial outcomes concerning public safety and U.S. sovereignty.