Abrego Garcia lawyers blast ‘shocking proposition' behind Trump admin resistance
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is still imprisoned in El Salvador after the U.S. government illegally sent him there in March. According to the latest filing from his lawyers, the Trump administration is still resisting facilitating his return, despite having been ordered to do so by judges at every level of the court system.
'The Government asks this Court to accept a shocking proposition: that federal officers may snatch residents of this country and deposit them in foreign prisons in admitted violation of federal law, while no court in the United States has jurisdiction to do anything about it,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote Monday in their opposition to the government's motion to dismiss.
The motion, filed last week, is pending before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the government to facilitate his return nearly two months ago. The Supreme Court largely backed her order in April, but instead of approving it completely in a way that could've ended the matter, the high court's order left open questions while sending the case back to the Maryland judge for further litigation.
The Supreme Court said on April 10 that Xinis' order 'properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' And yet, the government has not done that.
Since then, the lower court litigation has been unfolding too slowly to the liking of Abrego Garcia's lawyers, who said in their opposition filing that the administration is just trying to rehash 'recycled arguments' in its dismissal motion. The government can now file a final reply brief before Xinis rules, and that reply would ordinarily be due in two weeks; but Abrego Garcia's lawyers have asked the judge to cut that due date to one week. 'Further briefing on recycled arguments should not prolong a case that has already dragged on far too long for Abrego Garcia and his family,' they wrote.
So while news has emerged of yet more immigrants the government has wrongly sent to other countries since Abrego Garcia's illegal removal, his return is still not in sight.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin
Pulitzer Prize-winning screenwriter David Mamet has recalled once receiving a lengthy phone call from Donald Trump after he dared not to go all in on the then-former president's 2020 election conspiracy theories. Trump loyalist Mamet, appearing on Bill Maher's 'Club Random Podcast' this week, remembered being 'kind of iffy' about whether the election had been stolen from Trump during an appearance on Maher's HBO show, 'Real Time.' At 8 a.m. the following day, the Hollywood veteran said he received a call from Trump who told him: 'I saw you on Bill Maher yesterday, you were great. But you wussed out on the question of the stolen election.' Trump then 'talked to me for like 20 minutes about how the election was stolen,' Mamet told Maher. 'But it wasn't,' Maher reminded him. Mamet, a yearslong vocal critic of progressive causes who has called former President Barack Obama a 'tyrant' and described diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as 'garbage,' responded: 'Well, I think it was.' Maher noted how the claim that the election was rigged for now-former President Joe Biden has fallen flat in dozens of court cases, been dismissed by Trump's own commissioners and analysts have described the 2020 vote as 'the most fair, honest election we've ever had.' Mamet argued Trump would have won by a majority had various issues not been suppressed. 'Oh, please. That's so ridiculous,' said Maher, who doubted they would have swung the result. Watch from the 5:30 point here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call Cringe Karoline Leavitt Clip Perfectly Sums Up Trump's White House, Say Critics Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Holiday let owners face tax ‘triple whammy'
Airbnb owners are set to face a triple whammy of taxes as the Government increasingly treats them as 'walking ATMs,' a senior Tory MP has warned. Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing minister, criticised ministers for hitting short-term let owners with little-known licensing fees when they are already paying double council tax. From April 1, all English councils were given the powers to charge a 100pc council tax premium on second home owners. More than 230 chose to implement the charge – which The Telegraph is campaigning to be cut or abolished. But the new legislation included scope for the Government to introduce a registration scheme to regulate holiday lets and ensure they are recorded with councils. This is expected to involve a licensing charge, which experts estimated would be around £100 per year. Labour has failed to provide a timeframe for when this will be introduced. The result could be that short-term let owners are saddled with paying double council tax bills, plus an annual licensing fee. Mr Hollinrake has argued that the double council tax bill should cover the cost of an owner registering a short-term let. In a written parliamentary question, he asked the Government whether it 'will ensure that homes subject to a second homes council tax premium by local authorities are not charged additional registration fees'. But Chris Bryant, the culture minister, refused to confirm the exemption in his response. He added that the 'scope of the scheme is still being determined'. A loophole in the business rates system means some households could avoid the double tax altogether. Mr Hollinrake told The Telegraph: 'Labour's thirst for tax cannot be quenched, and people may now be hit by a triple whammy of council charges – two lots of council tax, and a licensing fee on top if they ever want to rent it out. 'Such licensing charges are especially pointless, as councils already know the property is being used as a second home by virtue of the council tax surcharge. 'Local taxpayers deserve better than being treated like walking ATMs by this punishing Labour government.' Andy Fenner, head of the Short Term Accommodation Association (STAA), said: 'This appears to be purely a revenue-generating exercise rather than a genuine policy need. Short-term rental tourism provides vital investment and supports thousands of jobs and businesses throughout our communities. Alistair Handyside, of the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK, said it was supportive of the scheme but concerned about 'the amount of other interventions such as the council tax premiums, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime and the new EPC standards, these are closing businesses at a very fast rate'. The second home council tax premium was originally brought in by the Tories. However, Labour has come under criticism for refusing to monitor the impact of the policy on housing, tourism and local economies. Ministers said it was up to individual councils to decide if the double tax is 'effective'. But The Telegraph revealed earlier this month that eight in 10 local authorities who charge the premium failed to carry out impact assessments before introducing it. If a property is let out for 70 nights a year, it qualifies for business rates and is therefore exempt from council tax. Many second home owners will qualify for small business rates relief, which offers up to 100pc relief, if the property is the only one they let. This loophole will cost local authorities £334m this year in missed revenue, a figure which politicians said proved the premium was backfiring. If a property is not let for 70 days, however, it will still be on the hook for all three charges. A government spokesman said: 'A registration scheme will help local authorities across England identify the short-term lets in their area so they can address any community impacts. We will set out more details on how the scheme will work in due course.' AirBnb was also approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed U.S. automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidize their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double U.S. capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognizing its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it. ____ Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School. ___
