Expanding the "Transgender" Agenda in Schools

Upcoming Title IX Regulation Will Legalize and Expand the Transgender Agenda in Schools

By Edward E. Bartlett

Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. Title IX is basically a good law, but in recent years, Leftists have politicized and weaponized Title IX.

In 2011, the Obama Administration issued a campus policy that removed numerous due process protections for students – mostly men – accused of sexual misconduct. The campus disciplinary committees – sometimes referred to as “Kangaroo Courts,” dispensed with the presumption of innocence and expelled hundreds of students. In response, numerous lawsuits were filed against colleges in Maryland and across the nation. In a majority of cases, the accused student won the lawsuit.

Now, the Biden Administration wants to issue a new regulation that will further politicize Title IX. Specifically, the plan is to expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.” You can imagine the chaos this will create:

  1. Transgenders will be given full rein to participate in women’s sports. Obviously, transgenders possess significant physical advantages over biological females. The effect will be to eliminate women’s sports as we have traditionally known them.
  2. Activist school counselors will be free to approach students to discuss the possibility that they are experiencing “gender dysphoria” and need to “transition” to another gender – without the parents’ knowledge or consent. In one case, this led to the tragic suicide of a California girl.
  3. Students will be forced to use the requested gender pronoun, even though forced speech is a violation of free speech. In a recent Wisconsin case, an eighth grade student was charged with “sexual harassment” because he declined to use the desired pronoun of a female classmate.

Fortunately, 88 organizations, including 15 attorneys general, have called on the US Department of Education to cancel its ill-conceived plan to move ahead with this new Title IX policy.

If all of this seems Orwellian, it truly is.


Edward E. Bartlett, a long-time resident of Montgomery County, is the president of SAVE, a national policy organization that is working for fairness and due process in schools. Groups that wish to join the coalition to oppose the new Title IX regulation should contact him at: [email protected]

Mid County MoCo May

Mid County MoCo Met in Gaithersburg


Legislative District 39 Director and Central Committee Member Greg Decker hosted information night at La Mexicana Restaurant in Gaithersburg. He introduced Republican and Board of Education candidates, showed the old and new political maps - which gave us two more Montgomery County Council Members and one extra partial State district with Delegates and a State Senator - and answered questions from the capacity crowd. This event is a monthly Third-Thursday event, not to be missed.

Meet Dwight Patel

Meet Dwight Patel

I truly believe in the American dream of pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps. I have heard too many stories within my family and outside of my family of how people came to America with little as $20.00 in their pocket, and through hard work, they achieve the American Dream.

In America, if you work hard, you can get ahead. I think the best thing the Federal, State, or local governments can do it get out of the way of the people.

I have heard too many stories from a former Iceman from Baltimore, with a 7th Grade education to immigrants who come to America with little as $20 dollars in pocket to achieving the American Dream. If your listen to the left today they’d say the “American Dream” is dead, but they are WRONG. There is ONLY an American Dream and it is alive and well. We see it when legal aliens become US Citizens, for many that is the happiest day of their lives.

This is what makes America Exceptional - anyone from anywhere can live the American Dream. Let’s face facts, there isn’t a German, French or English Dream. Its an American Dream, and it is alive and well. The progressive left fails to understand the dream. To be successful you need hard work and opportunity and too many of our policies prevent upward mobilization. Too many policies trap people to a class — keep them in a cycle of poverty and reliance on the welfare of others.

America is a lot like the proverb “…You can take a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink…” America is the water, plenty and bountiful, but one must take a drink from America.

Everyone who works hard in America, will succeed in America!

Website –

FB -

Twitter -

Instagram -

YouTube –

2020 Man of the Year

Congratulations 2020 Man of The Year - Cheng Biao Tu

Dennis Melby, former MCGOP Chairman, presented the 2020 MCGOP Man of the Year award to Cheng Biao Tu during a Republican Public Policy Dinner in Potomac.

This Man of the Year award recognizes the contributions of Cheng Biao Tu to the Republican Party in Montgomery County, particularly with his contributions to the very successful  Lunar New Year dinner. His service and support of Republican values and principles has been outstanding and an inspiration to so many great Americans.

Politically Correct

By Anne Koutsoutis

Political correctness (PC) first received widespread publicity in the media in the 1970’s when the National Organization for Women (NOW) proposed such language revisions as “chair” or “chairperson” instead of “chairman.”
The aim of the movement was to suppress thoughts or statements deemed offensive, prejudicial or stereotypical – anything that might intimidate people or make them feel uneasy. The original intent of the PC movement, being polite to others and promoting tolerance and diversity were good and honorable. Fifty-two years later the proponents of PC still argue that PC is needed to recognize tolerance and equality in a multi-cultural society.   
Instead of tolerance and equality, the PC movement has created a powerful social code that members of society have to follow in order to succeed and to be approved. It is a rigid orthodoxy precludes the acceptability of an opposing opinion. Anyone who raises a contrary view must be “ignored, shunned, denounced, attacked or silenced.” PC is inconsistent with free political life. It insists on rigid ideological conformity and makes discussion of fundamental issues and thus self- government impossible by forbidding even language used to discuss good and bad. It does not give us freedom; it gives us a soul-destroying tyranny. Entrepreneur David Sacks praised the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, calling it a “Berlin Wall Moment.” He called it “capitalism’s self-correcting mechanism” where somebody can push back against the “galloping wave of censorship” silencing people by the simple process of “de-platforming” anyone with contrary views. 
America needs a “Berlin Wall Moment.” Let’s hope the wall of censorship does begin to crack.  
Anne Koutsoutis is a Member and former Vice Chair of the Montgomery County, MD Republican Party Central Committee. She is also the President of the Chevy Chase Women's Republican Club.

2020 Woman of the Year

Congratulations 2020 Woman of The Year - Ruth Melson:

Dennis Melby, former Chairman, presented the 2020 MCGOP Woman of the Year award to Ruth Melson at the Awards reception in Gaithersburg.
Ruth was among the earliest of Trump supporters and has worked tirelessly for his campaigns.   She made the most phone calls on behalf of President Trump in 2020. As a matter of fact, she has received a special recognition from the Trump campaign organization for such tremendous effort!

Critical Race History

By Christopher Hekimian

The history of the Democratic Party on matters of race from the party’s inception through the Civil War.

  • 19 February 1807. Aaron Burr Arrested for Treason. Later acquitted based on suspicious circumstances involving the judge (Chief Justice John Marshall), who was a foe to President Jefferson[1] , who brought the suit against Burr, and Chief Juror John Randolph- who was also an outspoken critic of Jefferson.[2]
  • 1812 Tammany Hall, the seat of the democratic party in New York City was notorious for its legendary corruption which spanned most of the 19th century and sone of the 20th.[3]
  • March 4th, 1829. Andrew Jackson was elected president. Records indicate that Andrew Jackson was pro-slavery and was himself a brutal slave owner. Moreover, he did not free the slaves he purchased upon his death like many others, including Thomas Jefferson did.[4] [5]
  • 28 May, 1830. Democrats under Jackson pass the Indian Removal Act and begins the eradication of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Nations. thousands of Native Americans died as a result of the land confiscation and human relocation efforts authorized by the act. Jackson's democrats passed the bill by a margin of 101 to 97- Jackson's democrats made up 97% of those voting for the confiscation of indian lands and the forced removal of the Indians. In contrast, about 96% of the representatives from other parties opposed the bill.[6] [7]
  • 1836, democrat Franklin Pierce, while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, supported what came to be known as the slavery gag rule, which allowed for anti- slavery petitions to be received by the house of representatives, but not read or considered. This passed the House in 1836 and remained in place until 1844.[8] [9]
  • 4 March 1837. Democrat Van Buren wins the presidency and upholds his commitment in support of slavery. In his inauguration speech he expressed "I must go into the Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every attempt on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia against the wishes of the slaveholding states, and also with a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in the States where it exists."[10]
  • The closing of the Bank of the United States by Andrew Jackson plunged the US into the economic depression known as the "Panic of 1837". The bank closure was perceived as an attack against the funding sources of opponents to the democratic party by many. Jackson was censured by Congress for what they claimed was an abuse of presidential power against the Bank of the United States.[11] [12]
  • Van Buren completes the indian removal process initiated by Democrats under Andrew Jackson. Van Buren ordered the U.S. Army into the Cherokee Nation. The army rounded up as many Cherokees as possible into temporary stockades and then marched the captives, to the Indian Territory (what would eventually become Oklahoma. Estimates of the dead native Americans range between 4000 and 25000. The tragic event occurred over the course of between 3 to 6 months. It became known as "the Trail of Tears".[13] [14]
  • James Polk was elected President. Polk purchased slaves with his salary as President and did not free his slaves upon his death in 1853.[15] Polk even used his slaves in the White House instead of paid staff.[16]
  • Democrat James Buchanan, as U.S. Secretary of State, sided with pro-slavery southern democrats in blocking the Wilmot Proviso which would have banned slavery in any territories acquired from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War. Supporters for the Wilmot Proviso helped form the basis for the Republican Party.[17]
  • Buchanan supported the Compromise of 1850 which admitted California as a free state but would allow any new western territories to decide the slavery question on their own before being admitted as a state. Part of the compromise made it easier for slaveowners to recover runaway slaves.[18]
  • In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was passed. This repealed the Missouri Compromise and would allow slavery west of the Missouri river. Missouri would enter the union as a slave state and Kansas would be allowed to determine the question of slavery on it's own. 69% of Democrats voted in favor of the act and 81% of the Whig party voted against it. This event led to a wave of violence against abolitionists in Kansas referred to as "Bleeding Kansas". Democrat Franklin Pierce was president at the time.[19]
  • "Bleeding Kansas" occurs when pro-slavery democrats from Missouri beat, tar and feather and murder abolitionists in Kansas. The leader of the Pro-Slavery Missourans was Democrat United States Senator David Rice Atchison. Atchison was quoted as saying "kill every God-damned abolitionist in the district" when referring to Kansas. About 55 people were killed during the 4 year Bleeding Kansas debacle.[20] [21]
  • March, 1855. Pro-Slavery Democrats from Missouri cast 4968 fraudulent votes for slavery in a Kansas territorial election- such that 94.6% of the total of 5247 pro-slavery votes cast were fraudulent and cast by Missourans. Democrat President Franklin Pierce let the fraudulent election results stand.[22]
  • March 6th, 1857. Democrat Justice Roger Taney hands down the Dred Scott decision effectively barring slaves from the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The supreme court decision was split 7-2 in favor, on party lines. The Whig (Republican) justices voted for constitutional protections for slaves. Justice Samuel Nelson, who voted against constitutional protections for slaves was a democrat appointed by Whig president John Tyler.[23]
  • August 1858. Pro-slavery Missouri Democrats again attempt to steal the election for the territorial government of Kansas. Democcrat President James Buchanan accepted their efforts as legitimate and declared Kansas "as much of a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina" The fraud leading to the adoption of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas was so rampant and obvious, the U.S. House of Representatives voted against the Democrat-held Senate and President and a new election was ordered, which the abolitionists won, garnering 85% of the vote.[24] [25]
  • 1858, In retaliation against Democrat Senator Stephen Douglas for not supporting the Lecompton Constitution and for opposing the electoral fraud perpetrated by Democrats in the Kansas territorial election, President Buchanan uses government contracts and Executive influence to derail Douglas' upcoming election. The effort does not succeed and Douglas was reelected. Although Stephen Douglas opposed the obvious fraud of the Lecompton Constitution, he was no friend of African Americans. In his Presidential debate with Republican, Abraham Lincoln, he said "I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatsoever."[26] [27]
  • August 1861- July 1864, the Republican Congress passed the set of acts collectively known as the Confiscation Acts. The acts were designed to weaken the confederacy, first by freeing the slaves that were used in support of the confederate military and then those that were owned by civilian and military confederate officials. Another act extended to confiscation of property and ultimately the emancipation of all slaves was passed. The acts were passed by Republicans against near unanimous Democrat opposition.[28]
  • April 16, 1862: President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in Washington DC. The tally showed a distinct partisan divide with all the yes votes coming from Republicans and all the Democrats and Unionists voted against or absent. One Republican voted against the bill. The bill passed 29 to 14.[29]
  • July 2, 1862: After being vetoed by Democrat President James Buchanan, Republican Congressman John Morrill from Vermont championed and successfully passed the Land Grant Act. The Land Grant Act established colleges and universities that would be open to native American and African Americans. The act passed in part due to the secession of 11 southern states that were aligned with the confederacy.[30] [31]
  • 8 April 1864: The 13th amendment, banning slavery passes the U.S. Senate 38 to 6 with 100% Republican support and with 43% of democrats in opposition.[32]
  • 15 June, 1864 the Republicans amended the Militia Act of 1862 to give equal pay to African American soldiers.[33]
  • June, 1864 the Republican controlled congress voted to repeal the Democrats Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. No Democrats voted to repeal. [34]
  • October 29th, 1864: Sojourner Truth, a female African-American abolitionist and former slave wrote " I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me be that great and good man (Abraham Lincoln)"[35]
  • 31 January 1865: the 13th amendment, banning slavery was passed by the house with unanimous Republican support and with 77% of Democrats voting against it.[36]
  • 3 March, 1865: Republican congress establlishes the Freedmen's Bureau to provide healthcare, education and technical assistance to emancipated slaves. The bill passed both houses of congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The bill was signed by President Lincoln and became law- but it's provisions only lasted for one year. After Lincoln's assassination and when Andrew Johnson was President, Republican senator Lyman Trumbull introduced a bill to reinstate the provisions and to expand the program. Twice bills passed by the house and senate were vetoed by President Johnson until 1866 when the senate and house were able to override Johnson's veto.[37]
  • 9 April, 1865. Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrenders to General Ulysses S.Grant at Appomattox courthouse in Virginia.[38]
  • April, 1865. "Black codes", laws designed to impair the upward mobility of freed slaves in southern society were passed by Democratic-held legislatures in several southern states. The black codes were intended to ensure that African Americans remained second-class citizens in the south. The Freedmen's Bureau and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were championed by Republicans in order to protect the interests of southern blacks. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by Republicans against unanimous Democrat opposition. [39] [40]
  • April 14, 1865. John Wilkes Booth, a pro-slavery sympathizer with the Democrat party assassinated Abraham Lincoln.[41]


Note: The researcher uncovered multiple references to how somehow "Republicans" and "Democrats" switched places after the civil war. No explanation is ever given with the incorrect assertion. In fact, it is based on a misunderstanding involving "Conservatives" of the time that wanted to "conserve" slavery (mostly southern Democrats) and "Liberals" that favored abolition and liberating the slaves (Republicans in general). It is the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" that have changed over time. As the history shows, pre-civil war Democrats were predominantly in favor of slavery and pre- civil war Republicans were predominantly against it. With respect to civil rights for African Americans, the pre-war trend continued well into the 20th century.


[1] "The Conflict That Shaped Our Constitutional Order", Kyle Sammin, National Review, 3/10/2018, URL: Accessed 4/10/22

[2] "John Randolph of Roanoke" Wikipedia. URL: " Accessed 4/10/22

[3] "Tammany Hall- New York City's Political Machine Was the Home to Legendary Corruption". Robert McNamara, ThoughtCo. URL: Accessed 4/10/22

[4] "The 5 Reasons Why Andrew Jackson was a Cruel Slaveholder". Charlotte Zobeir Ali. La Bibliothèque. URL: Accessed 4/10/2022

[5] "List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves". Wikipedia.URL: Accessed 4/10/2022

[6] "Indian Removal Act". Wikipedia. URL: Accessed 4/15/2022.

[7] "To Pass S.102.(P.729)". Govtrack. URL: Accessed 4/15/2022.

[8] "Franklin Pierce". Wikipedia. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[9] "21st Rule". Wikipedia. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[10] Martin Van Buren Inaugural Speech. 4 March, 1837. Reprinted by Bartleby. URL: Acessed 4/15/2022.

[11] "Panic of 1837", Wikipedia, URL: Accessed 4/10/2022.

[12] "1833, September 10- Andrew Jackson shuts down Second Bank of the U.S.". (This day in history) History. URL: Accessed 4/10/2022

[13] "Indian Removal Act". Softschools. URL: Accessed: 4/15/2022

[14] "How long did the Trail of Tears last in days". Similaranswers. URL: Accessed 4/15/2022.

[15] "This President Secretly Purchased Enslaved Children While in Office". Becky Little. URL: Accessed: 4/18/2022

[16] "Plantations & Politics". Zacharie W. Kinslow. The White House Historical Association. URL: Accessed: 4/18/2022

[17] "Wilmot Proviso- United States history". Encyclopedia Britannica. URL: Accessed: 4/18/2022

[18] "James Buchanan". URL: Accessed: 4/18/2022

[19] "Kansas–Nebraska Act". Wikipedia. URL: Accessed: 4/18/2022

[20] " People & Events- Bleeding Kansas 1853 - 1861". PBS Resource Bank. URL: Accessed: 4/19/2022

[21] "Violence Disrupts First Kansas Election". URL: Accessed:4/19/2022

[22] "Community Conflict- LeCompton Constitution Senate Speeches". Springfield-Greene County Library District. URL: Accessed:4/19/2022

[23] "Dred Scott v. Sandford". Ballotpedia. URL: Accessed: 04/19/2022

[24] "James Buchanan- The LeCompton Constitution". World Biography- U.S. Presidents. URL: Accessed: 4/19/2022

[25] "John McLean". Wikipedia. URL: Accessed: 04/19/2022

[26] "Stephen A. Douglas: A Study of the Attempt to Settle the Question of Slavery in the Territories by the Application of Popular Sovereignty- 1850-1860". The Washington Historical Quarterly. Vol II, October 1907 to July, 1908. pp 314-317. URL:

Accessed: 4/19/2022

[27] "First Debate: Ottawa, Illinois". The Lincoln- Douglas Debates. National Park Service. URL: Accessed: 4/19/2022

[28] "Civil War- Confiscation Acts". Mr. Lincoln and Freedom. URL: 4/27/2022

[29] "On a party line vote, the U.S. Senate votes to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia". House Divided- Civil War Research Engine. Dickinson College. URL:  Accessed: 4/19/2022

[30] "Morrill Land-Grant Acts". Wikipedia. URL: . Accessed: 4/27/2022

[31] "Creating Land-Grant Colleges". U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. URL: Accessed: 4/27/2022

[32] "The Senate Passes the Thirteenth Amendment- April 8, 1864". U.S. Senate. URL: Accessed: 4/27/2022

[33] "The History of Equal and Fair Payment to Bothe the Black and White Soldiers". Walter Opinde. Black then and Now. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[34] "To Consider H. R. 512, (13 Stat 200) A Bill Repealing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and All Acts and Parts oOf Acts For The Rendition of Fugitive Slaves." Govtrack. URL: Accessed: 4/27/2022

[35] "Sojourner Truth Visits President Lincoln". Civil War Book of Days, Volume 5, Issue 43. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[36] "How Republicans and Democrats Voted on Key Constitutional Amendments". Almanac News-Town Square. URL: Accessed: 4/27/2022

[37] "Freedmen’s Bureau Acts of 1865 and 1866". United States Senate. URL: Accessed: 04/29/2022

[38] "When and How Did the American Civil War End?". HistoryHit. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[39] "What Were the Black Codes?". URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[40] "Republicans passed the first Civil Rights Act, in 1866". Human Events. URL: Accessed: 4/29/2022

[41] "Was John Wilkes Booth a Democrat?". URL: Accessed: 4/27/2022

Volume 2 of the “Critical Race HISTORY” list will address key events like the formation of the KKK, the attempts to legalize lynching, Jim Crow laws and attempts to fight or circumvent civil rights laws.

History is free to all people. Thank you to the information sources listed above. This document can be copied and circulated without restriction. 2022


Waking to a New Reality

Chairman's Message

Montgomery County is in transition. Like many of the jurisdictions around the country, Montgomery County is waking up to a new reality, a reality unlike what they envisioned for themselves and their families even 20 years ago.

Our County has become a place where people don’t feel safe in their homes and children aren’t safe in school. The Montgomery County Public School system has devolved from being one of the top public school systems in the nation, to not even being top in the state of Maryland. Our local economy has stagnated and fallen behind Northern Virginia, Prince George's County and even Washington, DC.  Our residents and business owners feel over-mandated, controlled, and subordinate to local leaders who are tone deaf to the real issues addressing the County.

County residents are fed up and have grown weary with the current County leadership that has propagated the same failed policies and played musical chairs with the same people for 12 years with no real progress. County residents are seeing the worsening violent crime, decline in school performance, increasing debt to finance the county budget, and moribund business and job growth. This is not sustainable

The time for change and new leadership is now.

We need leaders that can bring common sense back to our local government. Specific strategies include reviewing our current expenses before committing to new ones; prioritizing County spending so our tax dollars are focused on need-to-have rather than nice-to-have programs; partnering with local business instead of being an impediment to progress; supporting and funding our police and first responders; having our children taught the core basic educational requirements in reading, math and science, as well as the arts; and providing mental and financial help to those in real need.

Even with the mess that the current county leadership has left us with, I still have hope that the voters “get it.” That simple, basic, conservative values will make a resurgence…but the time to act is now. It’s time to get out from behind your keyboard, get off Facebook and get in the ring.

We can’t make a change until we get good people in office.

With only a week to file, we need great candidates. If you have the fire in the belly and want to make real change in in Montgomery County, please  contact me at [email protected]

Come join us and be part of the RED WAVE in Montgomery County - Be Silent No Longer - stand up, speak up and together we will make a difference!!

Weakening Our Immigration System

House Panel Pushes to Further Fragment Our Immigration System by Moving Courts


Joseph Edlow, General Counsel to the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Maryland, is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security.


From the Daily Signal

In a move that will prove to be all smoke and mirrors, the House Judiciary Committee is set to consider a bill that would displace immigration courts and their parent agency from the Justice Department and create an independent court outside the executive branch.

Although touted as a way to cut down on bureaucracy and politics and instead ensure swifter justice, the structure created by HR 6577—the proposed Real Courts, Rule of Law Act—would prove ineffective when paired with the stagnant immigration enforcement wing of the federal government and be crippled by its own growing pains. 

Let’s put aside the legitimate constitutional questions of replacing the authority granted to the U.S. attorney general with an Article I court outside the executive branch. This restructuring is both ill-conceived and ill-timed, and could serve only as the metaphorical straw that finally breaks the back of our immigration system.

The notion of an immigration court unattached to the executive branch is not new. The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union, has lobbied for this position in an attempt to move outside the auspices of the Justice Department. This effort intensified in 2017, as the courts’ parent agency, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, attempted to introduce performance metrics as a method of tracking case efficiencies. 

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

The renewed push comes from the misguided notion that moving the courts outside the Justice Department would speed up their efficiency and somehow be the lynchpin to unclogging the more than 1.5 million cases pending before immigration courts nationwide. Numerous reasons exist for that backlog, as my colleagues Cully Stimson and Giancarlo Canaparo argued here, and ways also exist to radically eliminate that backlog, as they opined in their research. 

The simple question that Congress should be asking is: Would creating a new court fix the problem?  The answer is clear: no.

Although judges would face new rigors in the hiring process, including some positions requiring Senate confirmation, the bill provides for continuity in court rules and existing precedent, at least until new ones could be established.

Furthermore, for a court system that has been plagued with continuances and other delays, it is unclear how removing the current immigration court system from within the Justice Department somehow magically would create a swifter process. The current immigration judge corps, 578 strong across 545 courtrooms nationwide, averages about 13,600 case completions a month.

Without drastic changes to immigration court practice, including limitations on continuance, it is unrealistic to suggest that this proposed restructuring will produce additional efficiencies in the process.  If anything, the move would provide the opposite. 

As a matter of practicality, any restructuring, especially one this bold, would take time to implement. During a phased-in implementation, it is unclear how the courts would continue to function at all. Instead, the immigration court system could experience a virtual work stoppage for a period while the transition, even if only on paper, is in process. 

In a larger sense, the idea that this restructuring would bring about some great awakening in immigration reform and swift justice lacks merit. In drafting the bill, Congress failed to recognize that you can’t fix a system where not all components are acting in accordance with the law. 

In this context, the government agency charged with immigration enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, repeatedly has demonstrated since the Pekoske Memorandum of Jan. 20, 2021, immediately suspending removals, that enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws would be scrutinized and disregarded.

In recent months, memos from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue to erode our immigration enforcement procedures. One such memo suggests that ICE’s trial lawyers, the prosecutors representing the government in immigration court, may not be needed to appear in court for many hearings.

Meanwhile, after an immigration judge’s order of removal is final, those orders go unexecuted as the Department of Homeland Security has demonstrated no ability, willingness, or—more recently—directives to follow through on the court’s actions. 

In its recently published annual report, ICE touted its approximately 59,000 removals in fiscal year 2021 as an accomplishment. For comparison, since 2014, immigration judges have ordered over 379,000 aliens removed in absentia (for failure to appear for a scheduled hearing). This doesn’t include any alien who presented an application, was denied, and ordered removed, or who appealed and subsequently was ordered removed.

Legislative action to restructure the court itself would be meaningless if it met this level of indifference in immigration enforcement. 

The House Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on the bill and now will mark it up, debating amendments as the Biden border crisis continues to rage. As we wait for Customs and Border Protection to release yet another month’s worth of border encounters to add to an already staggering figure for this fiscal year, reform and restructuring of immigration courts is nothing more than a misdirected, tepid response.

Instead of using its oversight authority to review the government’s many misapplications and instances of sheer disregard for immigration law in the past year, Congress is looking to trade one bureaucracy for another. Although rampant abuse in processing at the border is matched with toothless immigration enforcement priorities in the interior, Congress is looking to further grind the system to a halt. 

This bill isn’t immigration reform. It won’t make the border more secure, close loopholes easily exploited in our immigration laws, or move this country in the direction of ending the Biden border crisis.

Supporters herald HR 6577 as reform, but in reality the bill is a bureaucratic solution in search of a problem.    

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 



A New Congressional Map for Maryland

A New Congressional Map for Maryland

By Neil Parrott

Great news!  The voters of Maryland have won.  The extremely partisan gerrymandered congressional map that was passed in December by the legislature has officially been stopped.

To see Maryland’s new congressional map and to read a specific analysis of how this applies to District 6, please go to  

I have been glad to fight for fair representation for the people of Maryland for over 10 years with Judicial Watch’s help.  

First, as Chairman of, I worked with Maryland citizens all over the state to gather over 65,000 signatures to force the redistricting map on the ballot for the 2012 election.  Judicial Watch then helped me sue the state to try to change the unfair language on the ballot question.  After that, we worked together to sue the state in federal court to try to overturn the 2012 map.  Finally, in 2022 we fought for and gained a victory for more fair elections.
Governor O’Malley, in court and during speaking engagements, indicated that the reason for dividing the Western Maryland District in 2012 was simply to remove Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett.  That map was wrong then, and the 2021 map that continued that division was even worse.

The 2021 map that I took to court with Judicial Watch was an 8 Democrat to 0 Republican.  The map was overturned by Judge Lynn Battaglia who indicated that the map was “an outlier and a produce of extreme partisan gerrymandering.”  That map pushed through by the Democrat Leadership in the General Assembly where every Republican legislator voted against it and where Governor Hogan vetoed it.  

Think about it; that map would have significantly hindered any Republican in Maryland from being elected to the US Congress.  Republicans consistently garner over 38% of the votes for congress which would suggest 2.8 Republican Congressman in the Federal Delegation

While still a gerrymander, the 2022 map passed by the General Assembly on March 30, 2022, finally attempted to respect political boundaries and restored all of Frederick County into Congressional District 6, as it should have been all along.
After reaching a deal with the Attorney General (AG), Governor Hogan signed the new map into law on April 5th. The deal meant that the AG's office wouldn't try to overturn Judge Battaglia's ruling and that the Governor and I, along with the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, wouldn't continue in court to work for a different map.

As such, the extremely partisan gerrymandered map that was passed in December 2021 is gone.  This is a huge victory for the people of Maryland.
Is the new map completely fair?  No.  But it is much better for the people of Maryland, which was the ultimate goal.
Now that the map is settled, I look forward to running for US Congress in a district where the people will actually have a chance to pick their representatives, rather than having the incumbent politicians handpick their voters to protect their seats.  To learn more about my race for Congress, please visit and see how you can help.

Montgomery County Republican Party