‘I am an American': US court slams ICE for detaining LA man without cause
The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel denies the federal government's appeal to overturn a temporary July order to halt the 'roving patrols' in Los Angeles that immigration rights groups have described as illegally using racial profiling.
District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered an end to the arrests, arguing such actions by agents violate a person's constitutional rights that safeguard against unreasonable seizures by the government.
She said the detentions were being made 'based upon race alone,' on whether a person was speaking Spanish or English with an accent or because of their place of work, and ordered them stopped.
Friday's ruling by the US court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the case of plaintiff Jason Gavidia, a US citizen born and raised in East Los Angeles who was arrested outside a tow yard in Montebello on June 12 by agents carrying military-style rifles.
'The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American – and they repeatedly ignored his answer: 'I am an American,'' the ruling said.
Agents asked what hospital he was born in, and Gavidia responded he did not know, but said he was born in 'East LA.'
It said Gavidia told the agents he could show them his government-issued ID. 'The agents took Gavidia's ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.'
California residents and advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security over the detentions.
Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs have been ground zero for President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown.
He ordered the US military deployed there for weeks, and agents have rounded up migrants at car washes, bus stops, stores and farms.
The ruling said the government's defense team argued that 'certain types of businesses, including car washes, were selected for encounters because... they are likely to employ persons without legal documentation.'
Rights groups hailed the order as a victory for those seeking to bar the Department of Homeland Security and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting such raids.
'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region,' said attorney Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.
'We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Kelantan Immigration uncovers use of fake passport stamps by worker agents
RANTAU PANJANG: The state Immigration Department has detected a small number of agents managing the entry of Thai workers into Malaysia who are suspected of using fake passport stamps. State Immigration director Mohamed Yusoff Khan Mohamad Hassan said the discovery was made following the inspection of six "roadtour" vans. He said the vehicles entered the country through the Immigration, Customs, Quarantine and Security (ICQS) complex here. "In the operation conducted this afternoon, we inspected a total of 42 Thais after stopping the vehicles in which they were travelling. "Checks revealed that the passport of one of the drivers had Immigration stamps that looked suspicious and lacked an entry stamp from Thai authorities. "The driver has since been detained for further investigations," he told reporters here today. Yusoff said the two-hour operation which began at 5.30pm, involved more than 20 officers. He said the Thais, mostly women, were being held for questioning. The foreigners were heading to Kuala Lumpur to work when arrested by Immigration officers. All have been sent to the department's enforcement office in Kota Baru for documentation.
Malay Mail
6 hours ago
- Malay Mail
What happens next in the US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON, Aug 5 — A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared sceptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centres around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the Supreme Court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbours, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. — Reuters
Free Malaysia Today
8 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump confirms US envoy Witkoff to travel to Russia next week
Russian President Vladimir Putin has already met US special envoy Steve Witkoff multiple times in Moscow. (AP) WASHINGTON : President Donald Trump confirmed Sunday his special envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia next week, ahead of a looming US sanctions deadline and escalating tensions with Moscow. Speaking to reporters, Trump also said that two nuclear submarines he deployed following an online row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev were now 'in the region'. Trump has not said whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the exact deployment locations, which are kept secret by the US military. The nuclear sabre-rattling came against the backdrop of a deadline set by Trump at the end of next week for Russia to take steps to ending the Ukraine war or face unspecified new sanctions. The Republican leader said Witkoff would visit 'I think next week, Wednesday or Thursday'. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already met Witkoff multiple times in Moscow, before Trump's efforts to mend ties with the Kremlin came to a grinding halt. When reporters asked what Witkoff's message would be to Moscow, and if there was anything Russia could do to avoid the sanctions, Trump replied: 'Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed.' Trump has previously threatened that new measures could mean 'secondary tariffs' targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, such as China and India. This would further stifle Russia, but would risk significant international disruption. Despite the pressure from Washington, Russia's onslaught against its pro-Western neighbor continues to unfold. Putin, who has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, said Friday that he wants peace but that his demands for ending his nearly three-and-a-half year invasion were 'unchanged'. Those demands include that Ukraine abandon territory and end ambitions to join Nato. The US president began his second term with his own rosy predictions that the war in Ukraine – raging since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022 – would soon end. In recent weeks, Trump has increasingly voiced frustration with Putin over Moscow's unrelenting offensive.
