Columbus judge says detained immigrant must get due process before he's removed
A U.S. District Judge in Columbus has issued a preliminary injunction for a Venezuelan man detained at Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, saying he has not received due process, according to court documents.
The petitioner in Y.A.P.A. vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., is concerned he will be designated as an 'alien enemy' under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), placed on an expedited removal track and transferred to the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) in El Salvador without being able to contest the designation, according to the document.
The document says the petitioner's removal is currently being processed under Section 240 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
A proclamation by the Trump administration in March allows for Venezuelan citizens age 14 and older who are members of Tren de Aragua, in the U.S. and not naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the U.S. to be 'apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as alien enemies,' according to the White House's website.
The petitioner's motion seeks to prevent his transfer outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia until his petition for habeas corpus — a judicial motion forcing law enforcement to justify a prisoner's continued confinement — is decided, according to the document.
A decision Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land, states the respondents can't remove the petitioner as an alien enemy until '(1) Respondents submit to the Court a proposed revised alien enemy removal process as applied to Petitioner that is consistent with Supreme Court opinion in A.A.R.P.; and (2) this Court has entered an order specifically setting forth the due process requirements necessary to protect Petitioner's constitutional rights in light of the most recent Supreme Court opinions.'
The Supreme Court, in A.A.R.P., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., granted a temporary injunction for two Venezuelan immigrant detainees who asserted they were at imminent risk of being classified as alien enemies and removed from the United States with no record indicating they received any formal notice of removal.
The Venezuelan man's petition for Habeas Corpus, retrieved through the ACLU's website, states he has submitted an affirmative application for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture and plans to resubmit the application in immigration court.
The petition states Y.A.P.A. was arrested on Feb. 22, 'after Homeland Security Investigations targeted him for allegedly being a 'known associate' of Tren De Aragua.'
He is scheduled for a hearing on May 28 in Stewart Immigration Court.
In his decision, Land states:
'Respondents undoubtedly would prefer that they be allowed to implement any necessary changes to their AEA procedures without judicial oversight. Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the Executive branch would be a dereliction of duty by this third and independent branch of Government and would be against the public interest. Respondents have demonstrated their intention to test the constitutional limits of Executive power, which is certainly their right; but the Court has the responsibility to assure that unrestrained zeal does not include gaming the system in a manner that deprives an individual of constitutional protections.
...The public interest, while not always vocalized the loudest, requires that we remember that that these constitutional protections do not exist only for those attending lunch at the local Rotary Club, enjoying war stories at the VFW hall or having a beer at the Moose Club lodge. These rights are not rationed based upon political views, and they do not belong solely to those who may be subjectively determined to be great Americans. They extend to those whom many may consider to be the most repugnant among us. This foundational principle is part of what has made, and will continue to make, America great..'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Glendale jail is holding ICE detainees, an outlier in California, as immigration arrests rise
Immigrants detained by federal agents in Southern California are being housed at the Glendale City Jail, making the Los Angeles suburb one of the few, if not the only, known jurisdiction in the 'sanctuary' state to sidestep rules prohibiting local law enforcement from assisting in federal immigration enforcement. It's unclear how many detainees are being held at the 96-bed facility, but The Times confirmed at least two individuals were placed there over the last week by immigration officials. The facility is one of the busiest jails in the state and is staffed by the Glendale Police Department. Glendale City Council members defended the detentions this week, saying that the city had an 18-year-old contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to temporarily house noncriminal detainees. They said the agreement is in compliance with state Senate Bill 54, a landmark law that made California the first in the nation to create a sanctuary state. 'Glendale has a contract with ICE, and yes, on occasion, ICE detainees will be given bed space at our facility,' said Annette Ghazarian, a spokesperson for Glendale. Shortly before President Trump took office, Glendale Police Chief Manuel Cid told the council that the jails hadn't been used frequently for immigrant detainees since the Obama administration. He said that the mass sweeps would be logistically difficult given the capacity of the federal detention centers and that he didn't expect local agencies to fill the gap given state law. But advocates fear that is exactly what's happening. They believe that Glendale's arrangement takes advantage of a loophole in state sanctuary laws that omit standing contracts. And it raises questions about the state law amid ramped up enforcement efforts by the Trump administration, which has said it aims to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants daily. 'It is deeply, deeply troublesome,' said Andres Kwon, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. 'This contract very much goes against the principle and value of creating a bright line between local resources and federal immigration enforcement.' At a minimum, Kwon said the contract should end immediately. 'This is where the attorney general has jurisdiction and responsibility to review and oversee how Glendale is acting pursuant to this contract,' he said. The attorney general also has a mandate to review and report on conditions of confinement, which it has yet to do. Other municipalities terminated their contracts after then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 54, which prohibited local and state municipalities from using funds for federal immigration enforcement purposes, including the use of jail facilities. But Glendale's then-Police Chief Robert Castro, who opposed the law, did not. And at the time, the city manager warned against nixing the contract in a bid to maintain a good relationship with federal authorities. Jennie Quinonez-Skinner, a resident of Glendale, said she has been urging council members to abandon the contract since learning about it during the first Trump administration. 'They can end if they want to, they just don't want to,' she said. 'I see no justification for doing it. Under the current administration, with lack of due process, it's harmful.' At the time the contract was signed in 2007, the federal government promised to pay Glendale $85 a day for each detainee. Nearly 10 years later in 2016, the city reported that it received a little more than $6,000 for its services in one year. City documents show the contract terms are indefinite and 'may be terminated by either party with 60 days' written notice.' At the Glendale City Council meeting Tuesday night, immigration lawyer Sarah Houston, whose client had been detained at the jail and been without food for nine hours due to being transferred between multiple facilities, questioned why Glendale was adhering to a decades-old agreement that runs afoul of SB 54. 'We have SB 54 that says very explicitly, local law enforcement cannot provide resources, including cells, to immigration enforcement. California is a sanctuary state,' Houston said at the meeting. 'Do you want Glendale to be one of the only cities that allows local police departments to work with the Department of Homeland Security, so that they can just house and detain a lot of our immigrant sisters and brothers?' Glendale Councilmember Elen Asatryan tried to distance the city from immigration operations. 'We do not get involved, we are not even booking them, they are using the cells as a holding place in the city of Glendale,' Asatryan said. She disputed that detainees were not being provided food or water. The use of the Glendale City Jail to hold migrants has come up in recent weeks as the Trump administration pushes to increase the number of immigrant arrests by targeting them as they leave the courtroom. Immigration officials admit the effort has stressed their own resources as they look to increase capacity. ICE has about 7,000 beds in California with six privately owned facilities and has been looking to expand its footprint in the state as its enforcement begins to outstrip its detention space. 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's enhanced enforcement operations and routine daily operations have resulted in a significant number of arrests of criminal aliens that require greater detention capacity,' said Richard Beam, an ICE spokesman. 'While we cannot confirm individual pre-decisional conversations, we can confirm that ICE is exploring all options to meet its current and future detention requirements.' In Los Angeles, Santa Ana and around the country, masked federal agents in plain clothes have been arresting migrants as they leave their immigration hearings, often after a government lawyer asks that their deportation proceedings be dismissed. Family members who come to support their loved-ones often are left distraught. Typically, someone arrested by ICE in public would be transferred to a detention facility, but the rush of detaineesprobably strained the system and forcedofficials to look for other options, said Melissa Shepard, legal services director at Immigrant Defenders Law Center. 'I can imagine it will be an influx for detention centers that probably don't have the resources in place to keep all of these folks,' Shepard said. 'In Southern California, the detention centers were quite unprepared for the number of people being detained.' Times reporters witnessed more than half a dozen arrests at courthouses in downtown Los Angeles and Santa Ana courthouses Monday. In Los Angeles, Jianhui Wu, of China, was detained after the government moved to dismiss his case and seek expedited removal proceedings. The judge granted the man another hearing in August to give him time to find an attorney, telling him 'you need to talk to someone competent' about his case. But as he left the courtroom, a plainclothes ICE agent followed him, while another stopped him in the hallway. One agent took the man's backpack as they handcuffed him and swiftly took him down a service elevator. By Tuesday, he was being held at the Glendale City Jail.
Los Angeles Times
5 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Where is Trump's military parade taking place? See route, map
Where is Trump's military parade taking place? See route, map Show Caption Hide Caption White House plans parade for Trump's bday, Army's 250th anniversary The White House is planning a massive military parade to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. President Donald Trump is getting the military parade he's long wanted this year, as the U.S. Army plans to mark its 250th anniversary with a pomp-filled procession through the streets of the nation's capital, a date coinciding with the president's birthday. "The event is designed not only to showcase the Army's modern capabilities but also to inspire a new generation to embrace the spirit of service, resilience, and leadership that defines the United States," according to a May 21 statement on event organizer's website. "The parade will trace the Army's evolution from the Revolutionary War through to the U.S. Army of Tomorrow." Here's what to know about the parade's route and when it takes place. When and where is the military parade? The military parade is slated for Saturday, June 14, in the heart of Washington, D.C., spanning six blocks and bisecting the National Mall. Celebrations and associated events are set to take place throughout the day, starting with a fitness competition at 9:30 a.m. ET, and an assortment of military demonstrations, equipment displays and live music performances throughout the day. Visitors can expect kid zones, more than 50 vendor and experience booths, and meet-and-greats with "Army soldiers, NFL players, influencers and celebrities," according to the U.S. Army event page. Army, Trump love a $40M parade. But nothing is planned for Navy, Marines. What does the parade commemorate? On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress voted to establish the Continental Army, organizers say, marking the creation of America's first national military force more than a year before the Declaration of Independence. Trump, US Army throwing military parade: How to get tickets Where does the Grand Military Parade start and end? The parade will take place along Constitution Avenue NW, starting at 15th Street alongside the National Mall, near the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The procession will begin at 6:30 p.m. ET, cutting through the mall between the Washington Monument and German-American Friendship Garden on one side and the long grassy expanse of President's Park in front of the White House on the other. The parade will cross in front of Trump's viewing stand on Constitution Avenue south of the White House at about 6 p.m. It will continue in the direction of the Lincoln Memorial, passing by Constitution Gardens and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial before ending at 7:30 p.m. ET on Constitution Avenue NW and 23rd Street. A concert at the Ellipse is scheduled to start when the parade ends, and Army officials say a firework display will begin at 9:45 p.m. ET. Contributing: George Petras and Janet Loehrke, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
