Abrego Garcia Wants A Judge To Seize Pam Bondi's Phone
A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM's Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.
The slo-mo constitutional clash in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia inched forward with a new filing overnight in which his attorneys are now seeking sanctions against the Trump administration – including individual officials – for stonewalling and defying court-ordered discovery into his wrongful deportation to prison in El Salvador.
Among the wide-ranging sanctions Abrego Garcia is seeking is a possible court order for Attorney General Pam Bondi and other key officials to turn over their personal devices for U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland to review privately in her chambers.
The move to impose sanctions comes after what was supposed to be an expedited two-week discovery sprint ordered by Xinis on April 15 turned into a nearly two-month discovery marathon. Xinis ordered the discovery in part to determine with the Trump administration should be held in contempt of court for refusing to abide by her Supreme Court-backed order to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. In court the day she ordered the discovery, Xinis was adamant that she would brook no more delays or foot-dragging and ordered lawyers to cancel vacations and drop everything else.
'Nearly sixty days, ten orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a week-long stay, and a failed appeal later, the Plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the Defendants took any steps, much less 'all available steps,' to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States 'as soon as possible' so that his case could be handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers argue in the latest filing.
The sanctions Abrego Garcia seeks asks the judge:
to make factual determinations that are adverse to the administration, such as formally finding that it did not communicate with El Salvador to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release prior to his May 21 indictment;
order the administration over its objections to produce the documents it has withheld in discovery thus far, deeming some its privileges waived by its misconduct;
or appoint a special master to investigate the administration's 'willful noncompliance' and identify which officials by name 'willfully evaded' the court-ordered discovery, including possibly ordering the personal devices of key officials like Bondi turned over for the judge's review;
impose accumulating fines on officials for each day the discovery defiance continues; and
hold the administration in civil contempt of court.
Notably Abrego Garcia, who was secretly indicted while this discovery dispute raged and subsequently returned to the United States to face charges of conspiracy to transport undocumented immigrants, is not yet seeking sanctions for the weeks-long delay in complying with the court's order to facilitate his return. Instead, he is focused on the administration's alleged misconduct in defying the court's discovery order by failing to produce the required materials and witness and raising frivolous objections and privileges.
That seems to be a strategic decision to avoid the harder questions of whether the courts can order the president to engage in negotiations with a foreign country, to demand the release from a foreign prison of someone wrongfully deported to their home country, and other stickier elements of this case about which the Supreme Court has already expressed reservations.
Meanwhile, in his criminal case, Abrego Garcia asked the judge to release him pending trial.
In another wrongful deportation case, the Trump administration claimed a 'perfect storm of errors' led it to deport Jordin Melgar-Salmeron to El Salvador on May 7 despite an order from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals barring his removal. In the new filing this week, the administration also changed what it had previously told the appeals court about how the wrongful deportation happened.
It took long enough, but U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of New Jersey ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain or deport Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. But Khalil won't be released immediately, as the judge stayed his order until tomorrow to give the administration time to appeal his ruling.
The Trump DOJ fired two more people who worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team investigating, including a non-lawyer member of the support staff, Reuters reports.
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has made an unprecedented demand for a huge volume of 2020 and 2024 election data from the state of Colorado, NPR reports. While the data demand is not explicitly connected the criminal conviction of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, the Trump DOJ has already taken the unprecedented step of intervening in her federal appeal of her state
New reporting from Military.com on the highly politicized speech President Trump gave this week at Ft. Bragg:
Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance.
One unit-level message bluntly saying: 'No fat soldiers.'
'If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,' another note to troops said.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced eight new appointees to the CDC vaccine advisory committee he sacked – and at least a couple of them are real doozies, he NYT reports.
The entire board of the Fulbright program resigned over what it said was political interference from the Trump administration in its selection of this year's Fulbright scholars.
The NYT reported:
The board approved those scholars over the winter after a yearlong selection process, and the State Department was supposed to send acceptance letters by April, the people said. But instead, the board learned that the office of public diplomacy at the agency had begun sending rejection letters to the scholars based mainly on their research topics, they said.
The board posted its resignation statement here.
'It angers me when I see these rioters trying to pull barricades out of the hands of police officers and shoving police officers to try and grab the barricades and break the perimeter … I can tell you that if they try to do that in Mobile, Alabama, the orthopedic hand surgeons will have one hell of a weekend fixing hands. That barricade can become a weapon.'–Mobile County, Alabama Sheriff Paul Burch, commenting on this weekend's planned 'No Kings' rally
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Medicaid Cuts May Lead to Over 16,500 Deaths, New Study Predicts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and City University of New York Hunter College predicts that the Republican-backed "big beautiful bill," now under debate in the Senate, could increase the number of annual deaths in the U.S. by more than 16,500 and leave 7.6 million more Americans without health insurance. Why It Matters President Donald Trump's massive U.S. budget proposal has drawn sharp criticism from some lawmakers and health experts over its proposed Medicaid cuts. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill would slash the program by about $790 billion over the next decade to help offset roughly $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. Medicaid provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans, with around 71 million currently enrolled in the program. The CBO estimates that more than 10 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the bill becomes law. Critics warn the move could lead to worse health outcomes nationwide and, over time, drive up medical costs. Supporters of the bill remain firm in their belief that the cuts are necessary to reduce the federal deficit. Medicaid has expanded over time, most notably under former President Barack Obama through the Affordable Care Act, which broadened eligibility for low-income adults. While states contribute to Medicaid funding, the majority comes from the federal government—meaning proposed federal cuts would have a disproportionately large impact on the program. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What To Know Researchers Dr. Adam Gaffney of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of City University of New York Hunter College published a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, finding that the cuts would have profound nationwide impacts. The report estimated around 1.9 million people to lose access to a physician, 380,000 women to miss recommended mammograms and 7.6 million more uninsured Americans. "When patients lose health coverage, they go without all types of care — visits to the doctor, prescription drugs, routine tests, and procedures. In fact, they may even avoid the emergency room when faced with serious issues, given fears of medical bills. Such delays can be deadly," Gaffney told Newsweek in an email statement. Woolhandler, a primary care physician, told Newsweek in a phone call that visits to a health care provider are essential for early detection, as doctors can examine patients for mild conditions such as high blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol, "that we can treat to prevent complications." She added that doctors may also identify bumps, rashes or bowel changes that could be signs of serious conditions, including cancer or tumors. "The simple reality is that modern medical care saves lives," Gaffney also said. Health care like routine checkups, medication and access to preventive care such as mammograms are essential. Screening has nearly doubled early-stage breast cancer detection, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Drug prices are also likely to increase for Americans who get dropped from Medicaid, which may have deadly consequences. The effects of the cuts will be nationwide, although there's potential that certain states may increase their contribution to keep more people in the program. "It's a deep red state, but they have a very large share of their population on Medicaid, and Louisiana is going to be very, very hard hit," Woolhandler said, adding, "the recipients themselves are going to lose their Medicaid, the hospitals and clinics there are going to lose a huge part of their funding." Rural hospitals often rely on Medicaid, with the American Hospital Association's analysis suggesting that the Republicans' "big beautiful bill" would result in a $50 billion reduction in federal Medicaid spending on those medical centers over 10 years. " If you take away people's medical care, their health suffers and they die younger," Woolhandler said. What People Are Saying John Connolly, Medicaid director and deputy commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said in a media briefing last week, as shared with Newsweek by the agency: "[The bill] achieves its purported reductions by slashing federal Medicaid funding. But those reductions are actually a cost shift - to states, counties, Tribes, providers and people themselves who will have to pick up the expense of health care no longer covered and the cost of increased administrative burdens." Republican Representative Tony Gonzales said last month: "After four years of disastrous national security and economic policies, we're putting America back on the right track. This morning, I voted yes on the House reconciliation package, which includes funding to reimburse our state for Operation Lone Star costs, a priority I've fought for since House budget talks began." What Happens Next The "big beautiful bill" is under debate in the Senate. If passed, it advances to Trump, who has said he would sign the bill into law.
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court to hear New Jersey pro-life free speech case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a faith-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women's Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state's attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records. First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights. Attorney General Matthew Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin's subpoena "invasive" for demanding access to records. "State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," lawyers for First Choice wrote. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands." Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions. "Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so -- as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms," Platkin wrote in a statement. The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey's subpoena was valid, according to Platkin. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," Platkin added. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment -- period." Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted. "New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views," Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. "The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court." Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. "We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff," Hawley added. "The First Amendment protects First Choice's right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies."
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned. Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.' ___ ___ This story has been corrected to show that Chevron's counsel was 'pleased' with the decision by the Supreme Court, not the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
