DHS Says It Didn't Violate Order on Deportations Because Pentagon Executed Them
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on April 23 said that it did not violate a court order limiting the government from deporting illegal immigrants.
The U.S. government deported four illegal immigrants to El Salvador on March 31, three days after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy
The individuals, three of whom were identified as Tren de Aragua gang members and all of whom are natives of Venezuela, were deported to El Salvador by the Department of Defense, the government told Murphy in court filings.
No DHS personnel were on board the flight, and DHS did not direct the Department of Defense to remove the illegal immigrants, Tracy Huettl, chief of field operations in the Southwest for the DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement division responsible for removing illegal immigrants,
Huettl said that all of the men were convicted of crimes and ordered deported by immigration judges and that they were held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba until they were deported.
Two other illegal immigrants from Venezuela were deported to Mexico before Murphy's order, she added. One of those illegal immigrants was asked by immigration officers if he feared being sent to Mexico, Mary Larakers, an attorney for the Department of Justice,
Related Stories
4/24/2025
4/23/2025
'At this time, he stated he was not afraid of returning to Mexico,' she said.
The fact that the deportations were carried out by the military meant that the 'DHS did not violate the Court's Temporary Restraining Order,' Larakers said.
The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.
Murphy said in his April 18 order that when the U.S. government sends illegal immigrants to a country that is not their native country, they must be informed about where they are being sent and be given an opportunity to raise safety concerns.
'Prior to removing any alien to a third country, i.e., any country not explicitly provided for on the alien's order of removal, Defendants must: (1) provide written notice to the alien—and the alien's immigration counsel, if any—of the third country to which the alien may be removed, in a language the alien can understand; (2) provide meaningful opportunity for the alien to raise a fear of return for eligibility for [Convention Against Torture] protections; (3) move to reopen the proceedings if the alien demonstrates 'reasonable fear'; and (4) if the alien is not found to have demonstrated 'reasonable fear,' provide meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, for that alien to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal,' the judge wrote at the time.
Other cases challenging the government's removal of illegal immigrants have also been advancing in the courts since President Donald Trump in March declared that Tren de Aragua is invading the United States and ordered U.S. officials to deport members of the gang.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Government attorneys
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said on Wednesday that it had received the motion and directed the lawyers for the illegal immigrants who sued the government to file a response by 5 p.m. on April 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
School board chair defends controversial tax vote that could trigger state audit
Fayette school board chairman Tyler Murphy on Friday defended the school district in the face of a threatened state audit, lawmakers' criticism and a Kentucky attorney general's opinion of unlawfulness. 'FCPS is not the problem. In fact, we've stepped up time and again to fill the gap left by misplaced priorities at the state and federal levels, recognizing that our public schools remain the bedrock of our community and our local economy,' Murphy said in a Facebook post. Republican Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman ruled Wednesday the school board failed to provide the legally required notice to the public before its May 27 meeting and vote to ask the fiscal court to raise the occupational license tax for schools. On Friday, Fayette Superintendent Demetrus Liggins said the school board will hold a second vote on June 23. The school board will also a public hearing on a yet to be announced day on raising the tax. Parents and other people in the community, Democrats and Republicans, have expressed concerns about a lack of transparency in how the school board handled the vote. Notice of a May 27 vote was made known to the public only when it was attached to an online meeting agenda on the Memorial Day weekend before. Some have raised concerns about the school board's process, others about the possibility of a tax rate increase, and many others about the district's budget shortfall. Republican Kentucky Auditor Allison Ball said Thursday she is considering a financial examination or audit of the school district. Sen. Amanda Mays Bledsoe, R-Lexington, and Rep. Matt Lockett, R-Nicholasville are among those criticizing the district for a lack of transparency. Bledsoe asked for the AG opinion and talked to Ball about conducting a state audit. That drew a rebuke from Murphy. 'We don't need lectures from those pushing policies that harm working families and children,' he said. 'Our community rejected voucher schemes at the ballot box, and our community will continue to defend public education from political theatrics designed to distract and divide,' he said. 'While we always welcome dialogue and feedback that help us improve, it's important that the conversation begins with facts and reflects the reality of the work happening in our schools each day.' According to the attorney general's opinion, the school board's 3-2 vote to ask the Fayette Fiscal Court to increase school tax rates on residents and businesses' net income from 0.5% to 0.75% was improper. That's because, under state law, school boards must notify the public and hold a formal hearing before voting on new or increased taxes. Fayette school district officials argue the vote was legal and the tax increase was needed to cover a $16 million budget shortfall. The district recently approved an $848 million tentative budget for 2025-2026. The reality is that FCPS is a district with real momentum, he said: ▪ The district has received five consecutive perfect financial audits from independent, outside auditors, demonstrating responsible fiscal stewardship. ▪ Not a single FCPS school is labeled 'underperforming.' ▪ Though FCPS educates 6% of Kentucky's students, Fayette students account for 34% of the state's highest academic performers. ▪ The district continues to narrow opportunity gaps for student groups who have historically been underserved, improving outcomes in academic achievement, access to advanced coursework and readiness for college, careers, and life. ▪ FCPS maintains a financial transparency dashboard where anyone can track the district's expenses and budget. He said FCPS is on budget and in the black for FY2025. 'While we are proud of the progress being made, we are equally committed to transparency and continuous improvement. We know we must keep raising the bar for ourselves, in how we communicate, how we govern, and how we deliver on the promise of public education,' Murphy said 'That said, it's hard to ignore the broader political landscape. At a time when Washington and Frankfort are plagued by division, and decisions are too often made to benefit the powerful few, public schools have become a convenient target.'
