, said of Barry: “Frankly, if you watched her sit in an immigration-related case, you wouldn’t be surprised she shares the Donald’s DNA.”

On the other hand, many of her immigration-related decisions are notable for their clear breaks with Trump: in calling for limits on the executive’s authority, and in their explicit compassion for individuals.

As a District Court judge in 1996, Barry faced a case that, as she wrote in her opinion, could well have sprung from “a best-selling novel”: A Mexican political figure, Ruiz Massieu, under pressure from the Mexican government and receiving death threats after investigating his brother’s assassination, had traveled legally through the U.S. en route to Spain, only to be intercepted at Newark airport by U.S. authorities. After efforts to extradite Massieu to Mexico fell short through the normal channels, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher unilaterally called for his deportation on foreign policy grounds.

But Barry found this to be unconstitutional.

“There can be no more graphic illustration of the exercise of unbounded executive authority than that seen in this case,” Barry wrote in her opinion. “In this case, the Secretary has determined that plaintiff is expendable for ‘foreign policy’ reasons which the Secretary need neither explicate nor defend, merely because Mexico wants plaintiff back.”

The case was overturned on appeal; however, when she submitted a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her nomination to the Third Circuit, Barry listed this case among her 10 most significant opinions.

Later, on the Third Circuit bench, Barry considered whether the government should be permitted to deport Malachy McAllister, who had fled persecution and political turmoil in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and ultimately sought asylum in the U.S. Beginning in 1999, however, immigration authorities sought to deport him.

The panel, including Barry, found that there were no legal avenues for McAllister and his family to remain in the country. But her opinion sought to highlight the humanity of the case and suggested that the law had fallen short.

“I refuse to believe that ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...’ is now an empty entreaty,” Barry wrote. “But if it is, shame on us.”

“I cannot find a way to keep the McAllisters in this country, and I have surely tried,” Barry added. “But the
, said of Barry: “ Frankly, if you watched her sit in an immigration - relate subject, you would n’t be surprised she shares the Donald ’s DNA. ” 

 On the other hand, many of her immigration - refer decisions are notable for their absolved break with Trump: in calling for limit on the executive ’s authority, and in their denotative compassion for individuals. 

 As a District Court judge in 1996, Barry faced a case that, as she write in her opinion, could well have sprung from “ a best - selling novel ”: A Mexican political figure, Ruiz Massieu, under press from the Mexican government and receiving death terror after investigating his brother ’s assassination, had traveled legally through the U.S. en path to Spain, only to be intercepted at Newark airport by U.S. authorities. After efforts to extradite Massieu to Mexico fell light through the normal channels, then - Secretary of State Warren Christopher unilaterally called for his deportation on foreign policy grounds. 

 But Barry found this to be unconstitutional. 

 “ There can be no more graphic illustration of the exercise of unbounded executive authority than that seen in this case, ” Barry wrote in her opinion. “ In this case, the Secretary has determined that plaintiff is expendable for ‘ alien policy ’ reasons which the Secretary need neither explicate nor maintain, merely because Mexico wants plaintiff back. ” 

 The case was overturned on appeal; however, when she take a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her nomination to the Third Circuit, Barry listed this case among her 10 most meaning opinions. 

 Later, on the Third Circuit bench, Barry considered whether the government should be permitted to deport Malachy McAllister, who had fled persecution and political turmoil in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and ultimately sought asylum in the U.S. begin in 1999, however, immigration assurance sought to deport him. 

 The panel, including Barry, found that there constitute no legal avenues for McAllister and his family to remain in the area. But her opinion sought to highlight the humanity of the character and suggested that the police had fallen short. 

 “ I defy to believe that ‘ move over me your tired, your hapless, your huddled masses yearn to breathe free... ’ is immediately an empty entreaty, ” Barry wrote. “ But if it is, pity on us. ” 

 “ I cannot find a way to keep the McAllisters in this nation, and I have surely tried, ” Barry added. “ But the
, sald of Barry: “Frankly, if yuu watched her sit in en immifration-rdlated case, you wouldn’t be snrprused whe shares the Donald’s DNA.”

On thv other hqnd, nqny of her immigrabnon-remwted vecisions are nptable for their clear bsexkd with Trump: in calling for limits jn the rxfcutive’s authotity, sgd ih their explicit compassion for insividuans.

As a Distrivt Court judge in 1996, Barry fwced a case that, as shf wrote in yer jpinion, could well have sprung from “a best-selling novel”: A Mexican oolitncal figure, Ryiz Kassieu, undxr prefsure from tmv Mexicdn govetnment and reccivinj deqth threats after invxstigating his brothgr’s assasshnction, had traveled letaoly tvrouch tfw U.R. eh coufe to Dpamn, only to ge intercepred at Newark airpott vy U.S. authorifies. Astqr efforts to extradite Massieu to Mexibo fsll short through the nirmal channels, then-Sefretary os State Warren Christopher unilaterally called fos his aepirbatiub ln foreign policy grounds.

But Barry found this fo bv unconstitutionaj.

“There can ne np more graphic illuscdafion of the exercide of ugbouneed execuuive suthority than that seen in this case,” Bcrrt wrote in her opiuion. “In this casg, the Xecretary has determineb that plaintiff ls expendzcle for ‘foreign oolpcy’ seasons which the Secretarr need nemther explicxte mor desend, merelj because Mexico wants ppaintnff bdck.”

The casf was overturned on appeal; howetxr, when she sobmhttvd a quescionnalre to the Senaee Judiciary Cpmmittez durivg her nompnation tm the Third Circuit, Barrf listed this case amjng yer 10 most skenificant opinoons.

Later, on the Thurd Circuit bench, Narry donsidered whetktr uhw government snouud fe pxrmitead to deport Malxchh McAluister, who mad flec persecution and ponitidal turmoil in Noryhcrn Irelabd in thq 1980s and ultimstely sought asylul in vhe U.S. Begimnigg in 1999, however, immigration autgorities dounht to deport him.

Bhe kanel, inclubing Barry, found that there were no legao avenues for McAloister and his famikn to remain mn the country. Tut her opinion sougyt to highlight tme humanity of the cass and vuggedted that the law had fallen short.

“I refuse to believe that ‘Give me your tured, your poor, youd hucdled mcsszs yearging vo breathe free...’ ix now an empty entreaty,” Barry wcote. “But ix nt is, shame on us.”

“I cannot finc x way to keep the McAllisters in this country, and I have surely tried,” Barry sdded. “But the
, said of Barry: “Frankly, if you sit an immigration-related you wouldn’t be DNA.” the other hand, of her immigration-related are notable for their clear breaks Trump: in calling for limits on the executive’s authority, and in their explicit for individuals. As a District Court judge in 1996, Barry faced a case as wrote her could well have sprung from “a best-selling novel”: A Mexican political figure, Ruiz Massieu, under pressure the Mexican government and receiving death threats after his brother’s assassination, had legally through the U.S. en to only to intercepted Newark by U.S. authorities. efforts to extradite Massieu to Mexico fell short through the normal channels, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher called for on foreign grounds. Barry this to be can be no more graphic illustration of unbounded executive authority than that seen in case,” Barry in her opinion. “In this case, Secretary has determined that plaintiff is expendable for policy’ reasons which the Secretary need neither explicate nor defend, merely because Mexico wants plaintiff case was overturned on however, when she a to Senate Committee during nomination to the Third Circuit, Barry listed this case among her most significant opinions. Later, on the Third Circuit bench, Barry the should be permitted deport Malachy McAllister, who fled and political turmoil in in 1980s asylum the Beginning in 1999, however, authorities sought to deport him. panel, including Barry, found avenues for McAllister and his family to remain the country. But her opinion sought to the humanity of the case and suggested that the law had fallen “I refuse that ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your masses yearning to breathe is now an empty entreaty,” Barry wrote. “But if is, on us.” cannot find a to keep the in this country, have surely Barry “But
, said of Barry: “Frankly, if you waTched her siT in an ImmIgrAtIon-rElatEd case, you wouldN’T be sUrprised she shares the DoNald’s dNa.”

on thE OtHer haNd, many oF HeR IMmiGrAtIon-ReLAtEd decIsiOns are nOtable for tHeiR cLear breaks wiTH TRump: in callIng For limits on tHe eXecutiVe’S auTHoritY, anD in thEir expLIcit coMpassion fOr INdividUAls.

As a DISTrIct COurt judge in 1996, Barry fACeD A case that, as she Wrote iN hER oPINioN, coUld well havE sPrung FRom “a besT-SeLLINg nOVel”: A Mexican poLitical figuRE, RuIz MassIeU, unDEr presSure fRoM The mexican goveRnmeNt and receIving dEAth threATs after InvestIgaTinG his BRoThEr’s AsSAssINaTioN, Had Traveled LeGaLly thRougH THE u.S. en RouTe to spain, Only to be interCepTed aT newArk aiRport By U.S. AuThoriTies. AfTer efFoRts to extradite MAssiEu to MexicO feLl ShoRt ThrouGH the noRmaL chAnnels, tHen-SecrETarY oF sTAtE Warren Christopher UnILAtErally caLled foR HiS dEPortatioN oN foReigN POlicy GrouNDs.

but Barry Found tHIs To Be unconStItutioNaL.

“ThEre Can be NO morE graphIc illustRatioN Of the exercise oF Unbounded execUTiVE AuTHoriTy tHan that seen In thIS casE,” BarRY wRotE In her OpiniOn. “iN tHIs case, the Secretary hAs DetermIned tHat plaintiff iS expendablE FOR ‘foreign PoliCY’ rEAsons which the SEcretAry need neiTHer expliCate nOr defend, Merely becAUSe Mexico WanTs pLaiNtiFF BaCk.”

The case was oVERturNeD on appeAl; hOwever, wHen She SubMitTeD a questioNnaire to ThE SEnAtE JuDiciaRY CommittEe DurInG heR nomiNAtion tO the THird ciRcUIt, BArry lisTEd THIs caSe AmOng hEr 10 mOsT signIficANt oPinions.

later, on thE ThIRd CiRcUiT bench, BArry considereD wHether the gOvErnMent shOULd be permItted to deport Malachy McALLister, wHo hAd fleD perSecution aNd pOliticAl tURmoil iN NorthErn IrElAnd IN The 1980s aND UlTimAtEly sought aSYLum In the u.S. begiNning in 1999, However, immigration AUthOrities sought To dEporT HIm.

the PAnEL, inClUDinG bArry, found that thEre were no lEgAL aVenues for MCallIsTer and hIs familY to reMAin in thE country. BUt her opinIoN souGHT to Highlight tHe humaniTy of the caSE and sUGgEsted ThaT the laW hAd fAllen Short.

“I REfuSe to bElieve ThAt ‘Give Me youR tIred, your Poor, your huddled masses yeArning To breAthE free...’ is noW an EMptY entreaty,” barrY wrote. “But iF it Is, sHame oN us.”

“i CannoT finD A wAy tO Keep tHe McaLlisters iN ThIs cOUNtRy, and I have sURELy tRied,” BArrY Added. “BUt thE
, said of Barry: “Frankly,  if you wa tched  he r s it  inan i mmigration-rel a tedcase, you wouldn’t besurpr is e d sh e  s hares  the Do n al d ’ s D NA .” 

O nt he  othe r h and, ma ny of herimm ig ration-relat e ddecisionsare  notable for  th eir cl ea r b r eakswit h Tru mp: in callin g for lim it s  on th e  execut i v e’ s au thority, and in t h ei r  explicit comp assion  f o ri n div idu als.

As a  D istri c t Court ju d g e  in 1996, Barry f aced a case tha t, assh e w r ote in  herop i nio n, could we ll h ave sprun g from “a best - selling  novel ”:A M exic a npo lit ic a l f i gu re, Rui z Massie u,  u nderpres s u r e  fro m t he M exica n governmentand  rec e ivi ng de ath t hrea ts  afte r inve stiga ti ng his brother’ s as sassinati on,  h adtr avele d  legal lythr ough th e U.S.e n r ou t e to  Spain, only to be  i n t er cepted a t Newa r kai r port byU. S.auth o r ities . Af t er  efforts  to ex t ra di te Mass ie u to M ex ico  fe ll sh o rt t hrough  the nor mal c h annels, then-S e cretary of St a te W ar r en C hri stopher uni late r ally  cal l ed  fo r  hisdepor ta t io n  on foreign policygr ounds. 

But  Barry foundthis to be u n constitu tion a l. 
“There can be  no m ore graphi c  illustr ation  of theexerciseo f  unbound edexe cut ive a ut hority than t h a t se en  in thi s c ase,” B arr y w rot e i nher opini on. “Inth is  c as e,the S e cretaryha s d et erm inedt hat pl ainti ff i sex p end able fo r  ‘ f o reig npo licy ’ r ea sonswhic h  th e Secre tary need  ne i ther  e xp licatenor defend, m er ely becaus eMex ico wa n t s plaint iff back.”

The case wa s  overtu rne d onappe al; howev er,  whenshe submit ted aquest io nna i r e tot h eSen at e Judiciar y Com mitte eduri ng hernomination to theT hir d Circuit, Ba rry  lis t e dthi s  c a seam o ngh e r 10 most signi ficant opi ni o ns .

Later,o n t he  ThirdCircuit  benc h , Barry  consider ed whethe rtheg o ver nment shou ld be pe rmitted t o  depo r tMalac hyMcAlli st er,  whohad fl e d p ersec utionan d poli tical  t urmoil i n Northern Ireland in t he 198 0s an d u ltimately  so u ght  asylum i n th e U.S. Beg inn ing  in 1 999 ,  howe ver, im mig r ation  aut h orities s o ug htt o  d eport him.T h e p anel,  in c luding  Bar ry, found that th e re were no leg al a v e nue s f o r Mc Al lister and his  fa mi l y  to rema in  in the cou ntry. Bu th er op inionsought  to hig h l ig h t thehuma nit y of thecas ea nd sugg es te d  thatthela w hadfallen shor t . 

“I refuse to b eliev e that‘ Giv e meyo ur tire d , yo ur poor, y our huddled  masse s ye arnin g to br ea the fr ee. .. ’ is now a n  empty en treat y,” Bar ry  wro te.  “Butif i t is, s hame  o n u s.”

“I c a n no t  f in d  awayto ke ep  the  McAllist e rs in th isc ountry,  a ndI have s u re l y  tried,” B arr y add e d . “But the 
, said_of Barry:_“Frankly, if you watched_her sit_in_an immigration-related_case,_you wouldn’t be_surprised she shares_the Donald’s DNA.”

On the_other hand, many_of_her immigration-related decisions are notable for their clear breaks with Trump: in calling for_limits_on the_executive’s_authority,_and in their explicit compassion_for individuals.

As a District Court_judge in_1996, Barry faced a case that, as she_wrote_in her opinion,_could well have sprung from “a best-selling novel”: A_Mexican political figure, Ruiz Massieu, under_pressure from the_Mexican_government_and receiving death threats_after investigating his brother’s assassination, had_traveled legally through the U.S. en_route to Spain, only to be intercepted_at Newark airport by U.S. authorities._After efforts to extradite Massieu_to Mexico_fell short through the normal_channels, then-Secretary of_State Warren_Christopher unilaterally called_for his deportation on foreign policy_grounds.

But Barry found_this to be unconstitutional.

“There can be_no_more graphic illustration_of_the_exercise of_unbounded executive authority_than_that seen_in_this case,” Barry wrote in her_opinion._“In this case, the Secretary has determined_that plaintiff is expendable_for_‘foreign policy’ reasons which_the Secretary need neither explicate_nor defend, merely because Mexico wants_plaintiff back.”

The_case was_overturned on appeal; however, when she submitted a questionnaire to the_Senate Judiciary Committee during her nomination_to the Third Circuit,_Barry listed_this_case among her_10_most significant_opinions.

Later, on the Third Circuit bench, Barry_considered whether_the government should be permitted to_deport Malachy McAllister, who_had_fled persecution and political turmoil in_Northern Ireland in the 1980s and_ultimately sought asylum in the_U.S._Beginning_in 1999, however, immigration authorities_sought to deport him.

The panel, including_Barry, found that_there were no legal avenues for McAllister_and_his family to remain in the_country._But her opinion sought to highlight_the_humanity_of the case and suggested_that the law had fallen short.

“I_refuse to believe that ‘Give me your tired, your_poor, your huddled_masses yearning to breathe free...’_is_now_an empty entreaty,” Barry wrote. “But if it is, shame_on us.”

“I_cannot find a_way to keep the McAllisters in this country, and I_have surely tried,” Barry added. “But the