Dem Judge Joel Cano banned by New Mexico Supreme Court after alleged Tren de Aragua gang member arrested in his home
A Democratic New Mexico judge who had an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member living in his home, has been permanently banned from the bench by his colleagues, according to state Supreme Court documents.
Jose 'Joel' Cano resigned in March after agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested suspected TdA gang member Cristhian Ortega-Lopez from Cano's home in February.
4 New Mexico judge, Joel Cano, resigned from the bench after an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member, Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, was arrested at his home.
Donaanademocrats
Advertisement
4 The Supreme Court of New Mexico has banned Cano after the incident.
New Mexico Supreme Court
The discipline makes it so Cano 'can never hold a judicial office again, be a candidate for a judicial office, and cannot exercise any judicial authority in the state.'
The ban even bars Cano from officiating weddings in the state.
Advertisement
4 Cristhian Ortega-Lopez has been linked to the Tren de Aragua gang by ICE officials.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4 Ortega-Lopez was arrested in Cano's home.
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
The discipline, handed down by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, forestalls disciplinary hearings scheduled for Thursday.
Investigators found pictures on social media of Ortega-Lopez, 23, eating dinner with Cano's family and posing for Christmas pictures in 2024. Cano is wearing a cowboy hat and a bolo tie, Ortega-Lopez is wearing a classic New York Yankees baseball cap and a collared shirt that conceals his neck tattoos, the very tattoos that investigators say reveal his gang affiliation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
34 minutes ago
Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction
Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: A win for the rule of law — Abrego Garcia return is first step in accountability for Trump deportations
Finally obeying the Supreme Court's ruling 9-0 to return to the U.S. Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man with legal protections who was illegally sent to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration has followed the law and brought him back. That is good. But this being the Trump administration, Abrego García is now suddenly facing multiple federal criminal charges surrounding the allegation that he once ferried people in the country illegally to different states. Whether the indictment is solid or not, Abrego García will now have competent legal defense and will be before independent judges. He is entitled to all protections that are due under the Constitution, which the disappearance of him to El Salvador abrogated. There are no new facts in this case, only what was substantially already known to investigators and prosecutors. There could be myriad reasons why federal law enforcement did not take any action beforehand, ranging from lack of evidence to simple resource allocation. But what is certain is that only reason why they're pursuing it now: to send the signal that the Trump government won't tolerate questioning its enforcement efforts, and that if you become enough of a public thorn in their side — even if it is the result of popular outrage you don't have any hand in — they'll go after you. As predictable as a ploy, as this is, it's at least a good thing that he will not remain in the Salvadoran prison system; at this point, he's the only publicly-known person to ever leave CECOT alive. In the United States, he'll have access to the still-active protections of our legal system and can actually fight acknowledged charges with his attorneys. To state the obvious, this is a pretty clear indication that the administration always could get the Salvadorans to return custody. The insistence of Attorney General Pam Bondi and others that they had no ability to correct their acknowledged error was always a lie, and there should be consequences for that lie. Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis, who issued the original order for his return, has already set the groundwork to hold federal officials in contempt, and she should continue to explore that avenue even though he's now been brought back. The fact of Abrego Garcia's return does not mean that everything is above board with regards to the administration's use of CECOT or Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, under which most of the other detainees were sent. This was merely the case where the administration had most individually and egregiously violated the law, but, as D.C. Federal Judge James Boasberg recently ruled, every single removal under that policy — which to remind readers is based on the absurd conceit that the United States is in something akin to war against Venezuela — was unlawful. This isn't over until the government returns every person removed under the AEA and stops contracting with a foreign government to indefinitely imprison people on no charge, a policy for which it has never laid out any legal basis. The public outrage that was struck by Abrego Garcia's detention and removal should extend to all others who remain held there without charge, and to all of the people the administration continues to detain every day just for trying to follow the law. _____
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
How Washington is stressing out American schools
Public schools have had a tough run — pandemic closures and culture wars, falling test scores and rising absenteeism. Now they're facing a host of new pressures, this time from state and federal policies including proposals for private-school vouchers, funding cuts, and scrutiny of their approaches to gender and race. Many of the issues are under consideration, either in Congress or at the Supreme Court. Some proposals may be modified, and in some cases, the court may side with the schools' point of view. Nonetheless, taken together, public education today faces a landscape skeptical of, if not outright hostile to, its policies and priorities. The shifts could put new strains on schools' budgets and change how they handle controversial topics. That's particularly true for school districts in liberal states and communities, whose policies on race and gender are being challenged. But many of the threats and changes affect conservative communities, too. Some of the policies are economic, and some are cultural. Some are narrow, and others are broad. Some are proposals, and some are already in place. But put it all together, and public school advocates say they feel like they are constantly on the defensive. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 'The attacks on public education are coming from everywhere — from the judicial branch, the executive branch, the legislative branch,' said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, the School Superintendents Association. 'They're coming fast and furious.' Republicans control the White House, Congress and more than half the statehouses, and conservative justices make up a supermajority on the Supreme Court. Not all the pressures are ideological, but many are. This is certainly not the first time public education has felt pressure from Washington. Under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind law imposed sweeping new accountability standards and requirements on schools with high-stakes consequences, including potential loss of federal funding. But that effort was bipartisan and came after a deliberative debate in Congress. This time, the pressure is coming from multiple directions, sometimes without warning or congressional action. Take a journey through our schoolhouse to see some of the headwinds facing K-12 education in America today. Federal funding The federal Education Department has worked to cancel billions of dollars' worth of K-12 grants and contracts that support teacher training, mental health, and education research and testing. The Trump administration said the teacher training and mental health grants wrongly funded diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. It said the education research was not a priority. And its budget proposal for next year would cut deeper: replacing $6.5 billion in programs for K-12 schools with a new $2 billion fund. The administration also is trying to cancel more than $2 billion worth of pandemic-relief funding that school districts have been counting on, a move that is being litigated. The Biden administration had given districts extra time to spend their allocated funding, a decision the Trump administration abruptly canceled. School WiFi The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the federal E-Rate program that helps pay for school telephone and internet connectivity and represents the fifth-largest tranche of federal funding supporting K-12 schools. It is funded through the Universal Service Fund, whose funding structure is being challenged as an unconstitutional tax. School meals Congressional Republicans are considering significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, by increasing requirements for participation. The changes could put millions of people at risk of losing benefits, which would affect schools because many students are considered automatically eligible for free school meals based on their family's SNAP eligibility. The Urban Institute, a think tank, estimated that 832,000 students might need to prove their eligibility in another way if the changes take effect. In addition, the Agriculture Department cut a $660 million program that helped schools buy fresh food and meat from local farmers, ranchers and fishers. Medicaid cuts Medicaid is the state-federal health-care program for low-income Americans, but it also helps public education by reimbursing costs of care delivered in school. Republicans are planning significant cuts to Medicaid as part of their large tax and spending bill, stripping health coverage from millions of Americans. That could reduce reimbursements to the schools. It also could put new budget pressure on states, where education and health care compete for funding. Race and gender The Trump administration has threatened to pull federal funding from any school district that considers race in virtually any way for any reason, saying this is a violation of federal civil rights law. The administration had demanded that every district sign a letter affirming it is in compliance with the administration's interpretation of civil rights law, though the directive has been blocked for now by the courts. And the Education Department has launched multiple investigations of school systems that have diversity, equity and inclusion policies the administration does not like. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court may allow parents who object to lessons with LGBTQ+ themes on religious grounds to opt their children out. Schools say this would be logistically complicated, among other objections. Transgender athletes The Trump administration has said schools that recognize transgender students are advancing 'radical gender ideology' in violation of Title IX, which bars discrimination based on sex. The Trump administration has sued Maine because the state allows transgender athletes to compete in school sports, and it threatened to sue California after a 16-year-old transgender athlete placed first in two events at the state track-and-field championship. The Education Department also is investigating California and Maine for limits they put on what school districts can be required to tell parents about the names and pronouns students use at school. Students with disabilities The Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it easier for children with disabilities to win court cases in which they are challenging the accommodations offered by school districts. To win a certain type of case, families now must satisfy a high standard and show that the district, in denying the request for accommodations, acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment.' The challenge seeks to change the standard, which would make it easier for families to win cases against districts. Voucher programs Many states now offer parents tax dollars to pay for private schools or home schooling. A dozen states have programs that benefit all or almost all families, regardless of family income, though some are being phased in. The programs give families more choices but also provide an incentive for them to leave public schools. They also eat into state tax dollars that might have been spent on public education. A national voucher program is also under consideration at the federal level. The plan would allow federal taxpayers to donate money to state-based scholarship-granting organizations and then get their money back through a dollar-for-dollar, 100 percent tax credit. The scholarship organizations would hand out the vouchers, which could be used to pay for private school or home-school expenses. The vouchers could be offered in liberal states as well as conservative ones. Some of the Trump administration's actions may be blocked by the courts. Some of the Supreme Court cases might favor public schools. Some of the provisions in the GOP tax bill might be softened. But all in all, people on both sides of the debate agree that this is a moment of intense pressure. As a result, school officials have been forced to pay close attention to action in policy and politics, said Pudelski, of the superintendents' group. 'The message is that if you ignore what's happening in Washington, you do so at your own peril.'
