Homeland security officials defend immigration court arrests after being sued
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the agency and ICE says the arrests of thousands of people at court have stripped them of rights afforded to them under immigration law and the U.S. Constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
12 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump returns to court and hopes to represent himself
FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A man charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump last year at his Florida golf course will return to court Thursday to once again explain why he wants to fire his court-appointed lawyers and represent himself. Ryan Routh previously made the request earlier this month during a hearing in Fort Pierce before U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She did not rule during the hearing but said she would issue a written order later. But now Routh, 59, is set to be back in front of Cannon, a day after his court-appointed federal public defenders asked to be taken off the case. Routh is scheduled to stand trial in September, a year after prosecutors say a U.S. Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot Trump as he played golf. Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations. The judge told Routh earlier this month that she doesn't intend to delay the Sept. 8 start date of his trial, even if she lets him represent himself. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood and would be ready. In a June 29 letter to Cannon, Routh said that he and his attorneys were 'a million miles apart' and that they were refusing to answer his questions. He also suggested in the same letter that he could be used in a prisoner exchange with Iran, China, North Korea or Russia. 'I could die being of some use and save all this court mess, but no one acts; perhaps you have the power to trade me away,' Routh wrote. On Wednesday, the federal public defender's office filed a motion for termination of appointment of counsel, claiming that 'the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken.' Attorneys said Routh refused to meet with them for a scheduled in-person meeting Tuesday morning at the federal detention center in Miami. They said Routh has refused six attempts to meet with their team. 'It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,' the motion said. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings, as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney. Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Routh allegedly aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot. Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested, and the witnesses confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said. Routh has another, unrelated hearing in Cannon's courtroom scheduled for Friday on the admissibility of certain evidence and testimony that can be used for the trial. In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
CBC
13 hours ago
- CBC
U.S. appeals court upholds block on Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship
A federal U.S. appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in and brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the U.S. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the U.S. Constitution for political gain. Coughenour was the first to block the order. The White House and U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. Lower court judges' power curtailed The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief," wrote judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by U.S. president Bill Clinton. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions," he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. U.S. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase "subject to United States jurisdiction" in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S.
Winnipeg Free Press
20 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court allows Trump to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. The three liberal justices dissented. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The three liberal justices dissented. The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. ___
