A Big Boost For The President's Mass Deportation Plan
In a 4-5 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration is permitted to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport violent gang members from Venezuela. The president faces ongoing opposition from the left but asserts that immigration raids and deportation efforts are focused solely on individuals considered threats to national security. Former Acting ICE Director Jonathan Fahey joins to discuss the ruling and explains what the next steps will be for the administration.
President Trump's tariffs have sparked optimism from one American industry, as U.S. beef producers now hope to parlay the cost other countries pay to send their meat to the U.S. into a pitch that could bolster their chances of getting America's home-grown beef to the rest of the world. Fifth-generation cattle farmer from Illinois, Alan Adams joins the podcast to explain why the tariffs have the potential to make American beef an international staple.
Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor Joe Concha.
Photo Credit: AP
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Migrant family sues over US detention in what may be first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids
ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A mother and her two young kids are fighting for their release from a Texas immigration detention center in what is believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration's policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses. The lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that the family's arrests after fleeing Honduras and entering the US legally using a Biden-era appointment app violate their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The big picture is that the executive branch cannot seize people, arrest people, detain people indefinitely when they are complying with exactly what our government has required of them,' said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine court hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House's mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on 'expedited removal,' a fast track to deportation. Mukherjee said this is the first lawsuit filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy. The government has until July 1 to respond. There have been other similar lawsuits, including in New York, where a federal judge ruled earlier this month that federal immigration authorities can't make civil arrests at the state's courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding. The Texas lawsuit was filed using initials for the children and 'Ms. Z' for the mother. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for their safety. For weeks in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the mother has watched her 6-year-old son's health decline, Mukherjee said. He recently underwent chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and because of his arrest missed his check-in doctor's appointment, Mukherjee said. 'He's easily bruising. He has bone pain. He looks pale,' Mukherjee said, adding that he has also lost his appetite. 'His mom is terrified that these are symptoms that his leukemia situation might be deteriorating.' The mother, son and 9-year-old daughter fled Honduras in October 2024 due to death threats, according to the lawsuit. They entered the US using the CBP One app and were paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, which determined they didn't pose a danger to the community, Mukherjee said. They were told to appear at a Los Angeles immigration court May 29. President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants on his first day in office after more than 900,000 people had been allowed in the country using the app since it was expanded to include migrants in January 2023. During the family's hearing, the mother tried to tell the judge that they wished to continue their cases for asylum, Mukherjee said. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion. When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They spent about 11 hours at an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water. At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said. They were later taken to the processing center, where they have been held ever since. 'The family is suffering in this immigration detention center,' she said. 'The kids are crying every night. They're praying to God for their release from this detention center.' Their lawyers have filed an appeal of the immigration judge's May decision, but they're at risk of being deported within days because the government says they are subjected to expedited removal, Mukherjee said. The arrests of the family were illegal and unjustified, said Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights project who is also representing the family. 'The essential question in our case is, when you have these families who are doing everything right, especially with young children, should there be some protection there?' Gibson Kumar said. 'We say 'yes.''
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Migrant family sues over US detention in what may be first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids
A mother and her two young kids are fighting for their release from a Texas immigration detention center in what is believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration's policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses. The lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that the family's arrests after fleeing Honduras and entering the US legally using a Biden-era appointment app violate their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The big picture is that the executive branch cannot seize people, arrest people, detain people indefinitely when they are complying with exactly what our government has required of them,' said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine court hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House's mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on 'expedited removal,' a fast track to deportation. Mukherjee said this is the first lawsuit filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy. The government has until July 1 to respond. There have been other similar lawsuits, including in New York, where a federal judge ruled earlier this month that federal immigration authorities can't make civil arrests at the state's courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding. The Texas lawsuit was filed using initials for the children and 'Ms. Z' for the mother. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for their safety. For weeks in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the mother has watched her 6-year-old son's health decline, Mukherjee said. He recently underwent chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and because of his arrest missed his check-in doctor's appointment, Mukherjee said. 'He's easily bruising. He has bone pain. He looks pale,' Mukherjee said, adding that he has also lost his appetite. 'His mom is terrified that these are symptoms that his leukemia situation might be deteriorating.' The mother, son and 9-year-old daughter fled Honduras in October 2024 due to death threats, according to the lawsuit. They entered the US using the CBP One app and were paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, which determined they didn't pose a danger to the community, Mukherjee said. They were told to appear at a Los Angeles immigration court May 29. President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants on his first day in office after more than 900,000 people had been allowed in the country using the app since it was expanded to include migrants in January 2023. During the family's hearing, the mother tried to tell the judge that they wished to continue their cases for asylum, Mukherjee said. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion. When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They spent about 11 hours at an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water. At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said. They were later taken to the processing center, where they have been held ever since. 'The family is suffering in this immigration detention center,' she said. 'The kids are crying every night. They're praying to God for their release from this detention center.' Their lawyers have filed an appeal of the immigration judge's May decision, but they're at risk of being deported within days because the government says they are subjected to expedited removal, Mukherjee said. The arrests of the family were illegal and unjustified, said Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights project who is also representing the family. 'The essential question in our case is, when you have these families who are doing everything right, especially with young children, should there be some protection there?' Gibson Kumar said. 'We say 'yes.''
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim.
Kathleen O'Malley spent nearly three decades as a federal judge and knows what it feels like when the U.S. Marshals and FBI come calling with warnings about threats of harm. A jailhouse informant once revealed that another inmate was plotting to have her killed. O'Malley, who returned to private practice in 2022 after 16 years as a district judge in Ohio and 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, told me she always knew during her time on the bench that the U.S. Department of Justice "had my back" when threats came up. She felt a shift during President Donald Trump's first administration, a confluence of his aggressive attacks on judges who made him follow the law and the amplifying impact of his criticism through social media. The point of all that, O'Malley told me, is to intimidate judges, to prevent them from ruling against a president willing to target them just for doing their jobs. O'Malley, who once sat on a judicial committee tasked with making courthouses safe and secure, spoke to me this week because I am tracking an effort to increase funding for federal judicial security. That push comes after funding has been flat in the past two federal fiscal years, despite a growing number of threats against judges. The call for more funding has drawn predictable pushback from some Republicans in the U.S. House, including some who have vilified judges for holding Trump accountable when he was out of office and for making his administration obey the U.S. Constitution now that he has returned to the White House. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Judges don't come to this on a level playing field, O'Malley pointed out. The president is the commander in chief of our military. Congress controls spending. Judges? All they have is "the ability to persuade," she said. That should be enough. An NBC News poll released June 16 found that 81% of Americans said Trump should obey a federal court order if a judge rules his actions are illegal. That number drops to just 50% among Trump supporters. Opinion: The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts So Trump just keeps turning up the heat as judges hold him accountable to the law. And his allies in the House shrug off the danger, while echoing his attacks. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told Punchbowl News on June 13 that he sees few members "excited" to increase judicial security funding, in his reaction to a report that noted that threats against judges have nearly doubled since Trump took office. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, played the blame-the-victim game when asked about security for federal judges. 'Maybe they should stop screwing everything up,' Roy told Punchbowl News. Trump allies like Jordan and Roy offer cheap, empty rhetoric. The federal judiciary comes prepared with cold, hard math. The federal judiciary's $9.4 billion budget request for fiscal year 2026, which starts on Oct. 1, includes $892 million for security, a 19% increase of $142 million after no increases in fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was elevated by Trump's appointment in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, testified to Congress in May in support of the increase for security funding, telling the House members, "The threat environment facing judges and the judiciary as a whole right now is particularly dynamic and worrisome." Judge Robert Conrad Jr., appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush 20 years ago, was named in 2024 by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He testified to Congress about the budget request with St. Eve and singled out threats of judicial impeachment being made by Trump and his allies. 'The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings," Conrad warned. "Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation." Opinion: Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency That echoes what Roberts wrote in his 2024 report on the federal judiciary, in which he said threats of impeaching judges for how they rule are "inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed." Roberts noted that the U.S. Marshals Service said "hostile threats" against judges have "more than tripled over the past decade." U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, a Texas Republican, took offense during the testimony by St. Eve and Conrad, but not about the threats aimed at judges. No, Cloud said, the real danger came from judges like St. Eve, Conrad and Roberts linking the politically motivated calls for impeachment to the increase in threats to judges across the country. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. As with his colleagues, Jordan and Roy, Cloud wants us to blame the targets of those threats, federal judges, and not focus on anything politicians say that might help fuel those threats. The three of them, with their rhetoric, are all the evidence we need to demonstrate that an increase in security funding for federal judges is well worth it and long overdue. They, along with Trump, show no signs of stopping their attacks. We, as Americans, must provide for the safety of judges so they can uphold our laws. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: As Trump targets judges, GOP bristles at protecting them | Opinion
