State Department sued over Trump deal to house migrants in El Salvador prison
A coalition of democracy groups sued the State Department on Thursday, challenging the Trump administration's agreement with the government of El Salvador to house more than 200 migrants deported to a notorious prison.
The groups, represented by the left-leaning legal organization Democracy Forward, said the government took 'unprecedented action' to transport migrants living in the United States 'beyond the reach of U.S. law.'
El Salvador is reportedly being paid some $15 million by the Trump administration to house migrants in the country. The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the deal between Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
'That action shocks the conscience,' the complaint reads. 'It also violates the law.'
The suit cites the extreme conditions within the CECOT megaprison, known by its acronym in Spanish, where prisoners sleep in crowded cells with bunks three levels high and are not allowed to go outside or have visitors of any kind.
'Executive branch leaders have stated that the government plans to continue availing itself of the Agreement, sending more people, including potentially U.S. citizens, to indefinite detention in what is an effective black site,' the complaint states.
The challengers alleged that the State Department's actions bypass federal immigration law and international treaties while violating constitutional rights to due process, legal counsel and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
They say the Administrative Procedure Act requires agency actions, like the agreement, to be 'both reasonable and reasonably explained.'
'The Agreement is neither,' the complaint reads.
During a trip to El Salvador to visit the mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was told financial considerations were at play as they kept the man locked away.
Van Hollen had pressed Salvadoran Vice President Félix Ulloa about why Abrego Garcia was being imprisoned when he had no criminal history in either country.
'His answer was that the Trump administration is paying the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT,' Van Hollen said during an April trip to the Central American country.
Numerous migrants have challenged Trump's plans to deport them to El Salvador, including under the Alien Enemies Act, but the suit is the first to challenge the agreement between the two countries.
Five groups brought the lawsuit: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Immigration Equality and California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice.
Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO, called the practice 'unAmerican' in a statement.
'Our lawsuit makes clear: No president — past or present — can buy their way out of the Constitution to disappear people behind a paywall of impunity,' she said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 minutes ago
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
NEW YORK -- The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.'
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) on Compouding Your Wealth's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on HUBS. HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS)'s share was trading at $578.25 as of 29th May. HUBS's forward P/E was 61.73 according to Yahoo Finance. A person using a laptop with a blue background showing the software platform's user inteface. HubSpot reported strong financial results for Q1 2025, with revenue reaching $714.1 million, a 15.7% increase year-over-year and 20.8% quarter-over-quarter growth, surpassing estimates by 2.3%. Subscription revenue, which makes up nearly 98% of total revenue, grew by the same rate, highlighting continued customer demand for its core offerings. While gross margin declined slightly by 0.7 percentage points to 83.9%, and operating margin dropped by 0.9 points to 14%, free cash flow margin improved modestly to 17.1%. Net margin was negative 3.1%, reflecting a 4-point decrease from the prior year, largely influenced by non-GAAP adjustments and timing of certain expenses. Earnings per share of $1.78 exceeded expectations by 1.7%. Key metrics such as deferred revenue and remaining performance obligations showed significant growth, up nearly 20% and 37% respectively, underscoring strong future revenue visibility. Billings rose by 19.6%, though average revenue per customer declined slightly by 3.6%, signaling some pressure on pricing or customer mix. Customer count increased by 19.1% to over 258,000. On the operational side, sales and marketing efficiency improved with S&M expense as a percentage of revenue falling by 1.6 points, while R&D and G&A expenses rose modestly as a share of revenue. The company highlighted its rapid product innovation with over 200 new features released, particularly embedding AI across its platform and expanding enterprise capabilities. AI-powered tools like Customer Agent have driven measurable improvements in sales and support efficiency. HubSpot raised its full-year revenue guidance to approximately $3.04 billion, projecting continued growth fueled by a combination of seat expansion and consumption-based AI monetization, while maintaining a cautious view on macroeconomic uncertainty. For a comprehensive analysis of another standout stock covered by the same author, we recommend reading our summary of this bullish thesis on Shopify Inc. (SHOP). HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 61 hedge fund portfolios held HUBS at the end of the first quarter which was 73 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the potential of HUBS as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.
