[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6281-S6282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     United States v. Sanchez-Gomez

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last week I filed an amicus brief calling 
on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear and then overturn the ruling of the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez. I am 
proud to have been supported in this effort by all 15 sheriffs in my 
home State of Arizona, as well as the Western States Sheriffs 
Association and the National Sheriffs' Association.
  I should mention that this is not a partisan issue we are talking 
about. We have sheriffs representing both parties in Arizona. Every 
sheriff in Arizona has supported this amicus--all 15.
  This decision by the Ninth Circuit is just another example of a 
ruling that is well outside of the judicial mainstream. Unfortunately, 
in this case, their ruling dramatically undercuts effective border 
enforcement, and it creates a dangerous situation for law enforcement 
and the public. In this case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it violates 
the rights of prisoners for marshals and other sheriffs or other 
courtroom personnel to employ commonplace, thoughtfully crafted 
courtroom safety policies in which prisoners appear before a judge, 
fitted with appropriate restraints. This is a significant change from 
common practice, and it conflicts with two other courts of appeals.
  More troubling, the decision has prompted public safety concerns for 
Arizona and throughout the West. First, law enforcement will have no 
choice but to increase the number of officers needed to maintain the 
safety of individuals inside courtrooms. This means that more U.S. 
marshals and sheriffs will be spending their days in courthouses 
instead of pursuing violent fugitives or preventing street crime. Even 
with these increased numbers, law enforcement officials have expressed 
concern over the high threshold they are now forced to attain in order 
to get permission to fit dangerous prisoners with restraints.
  By putting these restraints on law enforcement rather than prisoners, 
this ruling limits the ability of sheriffs and U.S. marshals to ensure 
the safety of the judges, jurors, lawyers, prisoners, victims, and 
members of the public inside these courthouses around the country.
  This decision also dramatically undercuts the ability of the Federal 
courts to process illegal immigration border crossing cases as part of 
Operation Streamline, the very successful border enforcement program 
that has worked so well in some parts of Arizona. By establishing a 
zero tolerance approach to illegal border crossings, Operation 
Streamline has made a dramatic difference in the number of illegal 
border crossings in communities like Tucson and Yuma.
  This year, the Operation Streamline Program averaged around 45 
individuals per hearing. Even with these high caseloads, the program 
could remain efficient, thanks in part to traditional courtroom safety 
procedures. They could take 40 prisoners at a time and process them if 
they were allowed to use the current courtroom practices. These old 
policies allow law enforcement to bring up to 75 individuals into the 
courtroom at once, but under the Ninth Circuit's decision to relax 
courtroom safety protocols, law enforcement officers are now forced to 
limit groups of prisoners before the court to no more than a handful at 
a time. This makes it increasingly impractical for judges to hear cases 
due to the amount of time required for law enforcement to move small 
numbers of prisoners in and out of the courtroom. There simply aren't 
the hours in a day.
  I take the independence of the courts very seriously. That is why, 
when every sheriff in my State comes to me and says that there is a 
court ruling that is endangering their deputies and the public, I am 
going to urge that the decision be overturned by the proper authority.
  This makes a difference in Arizona for another reason as well. We 
have a lot of older courthouses. Some of them are historic courthouses. 
These buildings simply aren't built for today's needs in terms of 
access for prisoners and the public within these courthouses. Sometimes 
they have to go in the same doorways and in the same hallways. If law 
enforcement and courtroom security personnel are not allowed to have 
standards in terms of prisoner restraint, then you endanger

[[Page S6282]]

the safety of individuals visiting the courthouse and others. You are 
simply unable to process the number of cases that we have in Arizona, 
particularly near the border with regard to immigration cases.
  I hope that the High Court, the Supreme Court, will grant cert here 
and examine this ruling. It really makes a difference in a State like 
Arizona.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.