|
|
|
Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the Alien Enemies Act
Network News |
2025/05/04 10:47
|
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump’s invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States. Rodriguez said he wouldn’t interfere with the government’s right to deport people in the country illegally through other means, but it could not rely on the 227-year-old law to do so.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
“The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
In an interview on Fox News, Vice President JD Vance said the administration will be “aggressively appealing” the ruling and others that hem in the president’s deportation power.
“The judge doesn’t make that determination, whether the Alien Enemies Act can be deployed,” Vance said. “I think the president of the United States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded.”
The chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., said in a statement the judge had made clear “what we all knew to be true: The Trump administration illegally used the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process.”
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump’s proclamation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won’t revive a Minnesota ban on gun-carry permits for young adults
Network News |
2025/04/25 07:35
|
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Minnesota asking to revive the state’s ban on gun-carry permits for young adults.
The justices also left in place a ban on guns at the University of Michigan, declining to hear an appeal from a man who argued he has a right to be armed on campus. No justice noted a dissent in either case.
Taken together, the actions reflect the high court’s apparent lack of appetite for cases that further explore the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”
The court has repeatedly turned away gun cases since its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and a clarifying 2024 decision that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
The decision not to hear the Minnesota case was somewhat surprising because both sides sought the Supreme Court’s review and courts around the country have come to different conclusions about whether states can limit the gun rights of people aged 18 to 20 without violating the Constitution.
The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled that the Minnesota ban conflicted with the Second Amendment, which the court noted sets no age limit and generally protects ordinary, law-abiding young adults.
In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring young adults to be 21 to buy handguns.
In February, a federal judge declined to block Hawaii’s ban on gun possession for people under 21.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump White House cancels freeze on federal funding, resolving confusion
Network News |
2025/01/30 11:33
|
[Image Credit: Pexel]
by lawfirm-network.com
The budget office under President Donald Trump reversed a memo on Wednesday that had temporarily frozen spending on federal loans and grants, just two days after it caused widespread confusion and legal disputes across the nation.
The memo, issued Monday by the Office of Management and Budget, had alarmed states, schools, and organizations dependent on billions of dollars in federal funding. Administration officials initially claimed the pause was necessary to review whether spending aligned with Trump’s executive orders on issues such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
However, by Wednesday, officials issued a brief notice rescinding the original memo. This reversal highlighted the challenges Trump faces in swiftly reshaping the government, even with unified control of Washington.
Administration officials maintained that despite the confusion, their actions had achieved the intended goal of reminding federal agencies of their obligation to comply with Trump’s executive orders. Still, the vaguely worded directive, temporary freeze, and subsequent cancellation left many organizations uncertain and anxious about what might come next.
Nourishing Hope, a Chicago-based organization operating food pantries, home meal delivery, and an online food market, relies on federal funding for about 20% of its food budget. CEO Kellie O’Connell expressed that the primary challenge when the memo surfaced was obtaining clear and accurate information to plan for the months ahead.
O’Connell noted that while her organization could manage for a few weeks without federal funds, the broader concern was the potential reduction or elimination of assistance programs like food stamps, which would significantly increase demand for their services. “If that were to significantly diminish or get eliminated, it would be nearly impossible for the charity food system to step up,” she said. “It would be potentially catastrophic for our communities.”
On Tuesday, Trump administration officials clarified that programs providing direct assistance to Americans, such as Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and food stamps, would not be affected by the freeze. However, they faced difficulties in providing consistent and clear information. For instance, officials initially hesitated to confirm whether Medicaid was exempt before later clarifying that it was.
The White House’s abrupt shift in direction surprised Congress, including Trump’s Republican allies, who had defended the administration during the brief controversy. The episode underscored the complexities and limitations of implementing rapid, sweeping changes to federal spending and policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kavanaugh predicts ‘concrete steps soon’ to address ethics concerns
Network News |
2023/09/08 11:24
|
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh told a judicial conference on Thursday he hopes there will be “concrete steps soon” to address recent ethics concerns surrounding the court, but he stopped short of addressing calls for justices to institute an official code of conduct.
“We can increase confidence. We’re working on that,” Kavanaugh told the conference attended by judges, attorneys and other court personnel in Ohio. He said all nine justices recognize that public confidence in the court is important, particularly now.
Public trust in the court is at a 50-year low following a series of divisive rulings, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade federal abortion protections last year, and published reports about the justices’ undisclosed paid trips and other ethical concerns.
“There’s a storm around us in the political world and the world at large in America,” Kavanaugh said. “We, as judges and the legal system, need to try to be a little more, I think, of the calm in the storm.”
Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged recently that he took three trips last year aboard a private plane owned by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow even as he rejected criticism over his failure to report trips in previous years.
Reporting by the investigative news site ProPublica also revealed that Justice Samuel Alito failed to disclose a private trip to Alaska he took in 2008 that was paid for by two wealthy Republican donors, one of whom repeatedly had interests before the court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Supreme Court Fellows Begin Term
Network News |
2023/09/04 11:24
|
Four new U.S. Supreme Court Fellows will begin their 2023-2024 fellowships in September. Jose D. Vazquez joins the program from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where he clerked for Judge Adalberto J. Jordan. He is assigned to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, an agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of management and administrative support to the federal courts. Vazquez previously clerked for Judge Jacqueline Becerra, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Victoria K. Nickol is assigned to the Supreme Court’s Office of the Counselor to the Chief Justice. She has served as a law clerk for Judge Donald W. Molloy, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, and as a law clerk for Judge Sidney R. Thomas, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Adam J. Kuegler joins the program from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, where he clerked for Judge Sarala V. Nagala. He is assigned to the Federal Judicial Center, which is the education and research agency for the federal courts. Viviana I. Vasiu joins the program from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where she clerked for Judge Gregory H. Woods. She is assigned to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency responsible for establishing sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts. Vasiu previously clerked for Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Supreme Court Fellows Program, established by the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in 1973, provides participants the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the federal Judiciary. Fellows work alongside top officials in the judicial branch on projects that further the goals of the Judiciary. In the words of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the program offers “a unique opportunity for exceptional individuals to contribute to the administration of justice at the national level.” The fellows are selected by a commission composed of nine members selected by the Chief Justice. Additional background information on each of the 2023-2024 Supreme Court Fellows and the program’s history is available online. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diversify or die: San Francisco’s downtown is a wake-up call for other cities
Network News |
2023/07/17 11:47
|
Jack Mogannam, manager of Sam’s Cable Car Lounge in downtown San Francisco, relishes the days when his bar stayed open past midnight every night, welcoming crowds that jostled on the streets, bar hopped, window browsed or just took in the night air.
He’s had to drastically curtail those hours because of diminished foot traffic, and business is down 30%. A sign outside the lounge pleads: “We need your support!”
“I’d stand outside my bar at 10 p.m. and look, it would be like a party on the street,” Mogannam said. “Now you see, like, six people on the street up and down the block. It’s a ghost town.”
After a three-year exile, the pandemic now fading from view, the expected crowds and electric ambience of downtown have not returned.
Empty storefronts dot the streets. Large “going out of business” signs hang in windows. Uniqlo, Nordstrom Rack and Anthropologie are gone. Last month, the owner of Westfield San Francisco Centre, a fixture for more than 20 years, said it was handing the mall back to its lender, citing declining sales and foot traffic. The owner of two towering hotels, including a Hilton, did the same.
Shampoo, toothpaste and other toiletries are locked up at downtown pharmacies. And armed robbers recently hit a Gucci store in broad daylight.
San Francisco has become the prime example of what downtowns shouldn’t look like: vacant, crime-ridden and in various stages of decay. But in truth, it’s just one of many cities across the U.S. whose downtowns are reckoning with a post-pandemic wake-up call: diversify or die.
As the pandemic bore down in early 2020, it drove people out of city centers and boosted shopping and dining in residential neighborhoods and nearby suburbs as workers stayed closer to home. Those habits seem poised to stay.
No longer the purview of office workers, downtowns must become around-the-clock destinations for people to congregate, said Richard Florida, a specialist in city planning at the University of Toronto. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court asked to preserve abortion pill access rules
Network News |
2023/04/14 18:03
|
The Biden administration and a drug manufacturer asked the Supreme Court on Friday to preserve access to an abortion drug free from restrictions imposed by lower court rulings, while a legal fight continues.
The Justice Department and Danco Laboratories both warned of “regulatory chaos” and harm to women if the high court doesn’t block an appeals court ruling in a case from Texas that had the effect of tightening Food and Drug Administration rules under which the drug, mifepristone, can be prescribed and dispensed.
The new limits would take effect Saturday unless the court acts before then.
“This application concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote Friday, less than two days after the appellate ruling.
A lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations suing over mifepristone said the justices should reject the drugmaker’s and the administration’s pleas and allow the appeals court-ordered changes to take effect.
The fight over mifepristone lands at the Supreme Court less than a year after conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.
The justices are being asked for a temporary order to keep in place Food and Drug Administration regulations governing mifepristone. Such an order would give them time to more fully consider each side’s arguments without the pressure of a deadline.
The Biden administration and Danco, which is based in New York, also want a more lasting order that would keep the current rules in place as long as the legal fight over mifepristone continues. As a fallback, they asked the court to take up the issue, hear arguments and decide by early summer a legal challenge to mifepristone that anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations filed last year.
The court rarely acts so quickly to grant full review of cases before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved.
A ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Wednesday would prevent the pill, used in the most common abortion method, from being mailed or prescribed without an in-person visit to a doctor. It also would withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone for use beyond the seventh week of pregnancy. The FDA says it’s safe through 10 weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
