No Sanctuary For Stash Houses: Texas Court Backs Paxton's Border Crackdown
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton won a significant legal victory at the state's highest court, clearing the path for his lawsuit against a border aid organization to proceed.
The Supreme Court of Texas overturned a lower court injunction that had halted Paxton's prosecution of Annunciation House, an El Paso nonprofit accused of illegally harboring undocumented immigrants.
'Today is a great victory for Texas, secure borders, and the rule of law,' Paxton said in a press release following the ruling. 'Annunciation House has flagrantly violated our laws by harboring illegal aliens and assisting them to enter further into our country.'
The case stems from a 2024 lawsuit filed by Paxton's office against the El Paso-based organization. The Attorney General alleges the group operates as a 'stash house' in violation of Texas Penal Code provisions.
Paxton's legal team built its case on what it describes as substantial public evidence and employee admissions. They argue that these revelations demonstrate systematic law violations by the nonprofit organization.
An El Paso County district judge initially granted Annunciation House's request for an injunction, effectively halting the state's legal action against the Catholic-affiliated aid group.
The state Supreme Court's decision addressed more than just procedural matters. Justices explicitly rejected claims that Paxton targeted the organization because of its religious connections.
The high court found 'no evidence to support' accusations of religious discrimination in the case. Justices also reminded the trial court to presume the Attorney General acted in 'good faith' and with 'legality.'
Paxton vowed to continue his enforcement efforts against similar organizations.
'I will do everything in my power to stop them and any other NGO breaking our laws,' he stated.
Amy Warr, an attorney for Annunciation House, argued before the Texas Supreme Court that the religious organization has not broken any laws and has never hidden immigrants from law enforcement officers. She claimed that Paxton's attack against the nongovernmental organization is just anti-immigration political rhetoric, the El Paso Times reported.
The ruling represents another chapter in ongoing tensions over immigration enforcement along the Texas-Mexico border. Humanitarian aid organizations are frequently caught between federal immigration policy and state-level prosecution efforts.
With the injunction lifted, the case returns to the trial court level. Annunciation House will face the underlying criminal allegations in proceedings that can now proceed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Can Elon Musk get Tesla back on track? Here are four road bumps
After a tumultuous months-long period by President Trump's side, Elon Musk is turning his attention back to his companies, including the stumbling electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc. Musk announced on X last week that his time as a special government employee was over. Tesla investors welcomed the news, hoping that Musk's departure from Washington would boost his car company's reputation and lagging performance. Since Musk began his role leading the White House advisory team called the Department of Government Efficiency in January, Tesla's stock has fallen roughly 12%. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $332, down 3.5%. The Austin, Texas-based company — which has a significant manufacturing operation in Fremont, Calif., and is the dominant EV company in the state — has been the subject of protests and vandalism as Musk, the company's chief executive, aligned himself with Trump and made controversial spending cuts on behalf of the federal government. The brand damage spread outside the U.S. to Europe, where monthly sales in 32 countries fell nearly 50% in April. Read more: Tesla profit falls in the wake of brand controversy and tariffs "It was very important for Musk to end this chapter and start working on Tesla's next stage of growth," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said. "Now he can get back to what he's supposed to be doing." As the executive shifts his focus back to Tesla, here are four challenges experts say he must tackle: By associating himself with the president and the Trump administration's erratic actions, Musk alienated a large swath of his customers. Many Tesla drivers are liberal-leaning, industry analysts said, and were drawn to the company's environmental mission to take gas cars off the road. In protest over Musk's activities, some Tesla drivers, including celebrities, began selling or getting rid of their vehicles. Others sported new bumper stickers that said, "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy." In February, Tesla topped the list of brands that lost the most resale value year over year, according to data provided by Karl Brauer, an analyst with The price of a used Tesla Model S and Model Y each dropped by about 16% in February from a year earlier. 'Price is a reflection of supply and demand,' Brauer said. 'So it could be that nobody wants to buy them anymore, or that there's a massive influx of them available, or both.' Read more: 'I've been betrayed.' Tesla drivers are pushing back on Elon Musk Now that he's left Washington, Musk will have to prove that his attention is on Tesla and that he isn't prioritizing political agendas. Ives estimated that about 5% to 10% of the brand damage sustained during Musk's stint in the capital will be permanent. 'Tesla has become a political symbol around the world and that's not a good thing,' said Ives, who has an "outperform" rating on Tesla's stock. "But there are much brighter days ahead now that Musk is no longer in the White House." Musk has made lofty promises for years about the capabilities of Tesla's self-driving technology and plans for a robotaxi service. Though he has often over-exaggerated his progress, Musk has taken important steps toward commercializing autonomous driving technology. The future of his company depends on whether he can follow through, experts said. "Musk's top priority should be autonomy and robotics," Ives said. "With these technologies, I believe Tesla's market cap could reach $2 trillion." The company is currently valued at just over $1 trillion. According to claims Musk has made, Tesla drivers will one day be able to sleep in their car as it drives them across the country. Tesla's robotaxis will roam city streets, and humanoid robots dubbed Optimus will perform everyday tasks. Read more: Tesla Optimus bots were remotely operated at Cybercab event Brauer compared the emergence of autonomous driving technology to a change on the scale of the internet or smartphones. But it's still far off, he said. Although the driverless taxi company Waymo is already operating in a few cities including Santa Monica, it could take 10 to 15 years for the technology to become widely accessible and integrated into society, Brauer said. Tesla remains the dominant force in the electric vehicle market, but rapidly increasing competition from traditional carmakers and other EV manufacturers have thinned sales, Brauer said. Major manufacturers including Ford and Chevy have released lines of their own electric vehicles, while promising startups such as Irvine-based Rivian have cut into Tesla's market share. At the same time, demand for electric vehicles is plateauing as the market gets saturated, Brauer said. Read more: The plan for Irvine EV maker Rivian to emerge from its 'awkward teenage years' Tesla's profit plummeted 71% in the first quarter to $409 million as the company faced a flurry of setbacks, including a falloff in automotive sales and rising competition. To keep up and remain viable, Tesla will have to reassess aspects of its business model. "Many people, I think including Musk himself, have realized that the current business model is pretty much played out," Brauer said. "He's not going to substantially increase his revenue and his profit selling these same electric cars." Read more: With an executive order, Trump casts doubt on the future of EVs in California Tesla could receive a boost in sales if it successfully launched an affordable model accessible to more customers, but despite rumors and claims by executives, a release date has not been announced. The company could be further hurt by the loss of a $7,500 federal electric vehicle credit, which encourages sales and is likely to be eliminated by the Trump administration. While chargers for electric vehicles are ubiquitous in many parts of California, infrastructure is lacking throughout large areas of the country — and that's a problem. For the U.S. to rely more heavily on EVs, significant progress has to be made on the network of charging stations, Brauer said. Read more: Broken chargers, lax oversight: How California's troubled EV charging stations threaten emission goals Finding a time and place to charge is an obstacle for many Tesla drivers and limits the range of customers Tesla can reach. The lack of a fully comprehensive charging network would also hinder Musk's plans to operate a nationwide robotaxi service, Brauer said. In California, many chargers are broken or have been intentionally damaged by protesters. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump aims to build a MAGA judiciary, breaking with traditional conservatives
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is signaling a new approach to selecting judges in his second term, departing from his first-term formula of younger up-and-comers, elite credentials and pedigrees in traditional conservative ideology and instead leaning toward unapologetically combative, MAGA-friendly nominees. The president turned heads last week by launching a searing attack on Leonard Leo and the conservative legal network known as the Federalist Society, which played a major role in selecting and steering 234 Trump-nominated judges, including three Supreme Court justices, through Senate confirmation during his first term. Trump's transformation of the federal courts and the creation of 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority, which led to the overturning of the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade in 2022, was possibly his biggest achievement in his first term. But Trump slammed Leo as a 'sleazebag' in late May after a panel of judges, including one he appointed, blocked some of his tariffs. 'I am so disappointed in the Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous judicial nominations,' he wrote on Truth Social. Leo, who declined an interview request, praised Trump's first term judicial appointments, saying in a statement that they will be his 'most important legacy.' Of Trump's early judicial nominees in his second term, much attention has been focused on his decision to tap Emil Bove, his former personal criminal defense lawyer and current Justice Department official, to serve on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'What's different about him is that MAGA world is very excited about him because it sees him as someone who has been ruthlessly implementing the White House's wishes,' said Ed Whelan, a veteran conservative judicial nominations analyst who works at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The president's early actions have raised warning signs among conservative lawyers who favor a nonpartisan judiciary. 'It's potentially a watershed moment in the relationship between Trump and the traditional conservative legal movement,' said Gregg Nunziata, former chief nominations counsel to Senate Republicans who now leads the Society for the Rule of Law, a group of right-leaning lawyers that has been critical of Trump. 'There are allies and advisers to the president who have been agitating for a different kind of judge — one more defined by loyalty to the president and advancing his agenda, rather than one more defined by conservative jurisprudence.' Nunziata warned that the president is 'turning his back on' his first-term legacy of prioritizing conservative jurisprudence. Trump's social media posts were welcomed by some conservatives who want a new approach to judicial nominations in his second term — including Mike Davis, another former Senate GOP chief counsel for nominations, who runs the conservative Article III Project advocacy group and offers his suggestions to the White House on judicial nominees. Trump needs to avoid 'typical FedSoc elitists' who were 'too weak to speak out' on issues like what MAGA world perceives as lawfare against Trump during the Biden years, Davis said. 'We need to have evidence that these judicial nominees are going to be bold and fearless for the Constitution, and there were plenty of opportunities for them over the last five years to demonstrate that,' he added. Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who mixes in Federalist Society circles, said some federal judges may have concerns about stepping down if they are not convinced Trump will replace them with someone they consider to be qualified. Certain judges, Adler said, want to be succeeded by 'someone that understands the judicial role, understands that their obligation is to follow the law and apply the law, as opposed to someone that is seen as a political hack and is going to rule in a particular way merely because that's what their team is supposed to want.' Whelan said he has heard a sitting judge express such concerns. "I recently heard from a conservative judge who has decided not to take senior status because of concerns over who would be picked as his or her successor," he said. He declined to name the judge. During the first term, Leo played a key role in advising Trump on whom to pick. He helped come up with a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during the 2016 election, when some on the right were worried Trump would not pick a justice who was sufficiently conservative to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier that year. In Trump's second-term, the deputy White House counsel for nominations, Steve Kenny, has daily oversight of judicial nominations with input from chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House counsel David Warrington and Trump himself, among others. Like Davis, Kenny previously worked for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'In choosing these judges, we are looking for judges who are constitutionalists, who won't be judicial activists on the bench,' a senior White House official said. The administration is looking for judges whose judicial philosophy is similar to conservative Supreme Court justices such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the official added. Both are seen within MAGA world as more aligned with Trump than his own appointees to the court: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Despite the alliance with Leo delivering achievements that many Senate Republicans take pride in, few were willing to jump to his defense in the wake of Trump's personal attack. 'I'm not going to get involved in those personality conflicts,' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., another Judiciary Committee member, pleaded the Fifth: 'That's between Leonard and the president.' But, he added, 'I like the Federalist Society.' Grassley praised Trump's initial slate of nominees. 'Republicans remain laser-focused on putting strong conservatives on the federal bench,' he said. 'President Trump's first five judicial nominees, who all came before the Judiciary Committee this week, are high-caliber legal minds who will faithfully defend the Constitution and serve the American people well.' Despite the first-term success, there were already indications once Trump was re-elected that his second-term approach to judicial nominations would differ. Leo is no longer advising Trump, and both the president and his allies have been sharply critical of judges who have ruled against the administration in its early months over its aggressive use of executive power. Barrett has been one target, as have some lower court judges. 'Federalist Society lawyers are very bright. They're very intellectual, kind of the academic side of the law. This Trump White House is looking for more practical judges,' said a senior Republican lawyer close to the White House. 'A second element is there are some decisions that have been made by Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, that really disappointed the Trump administration, and Trump people more broadly, and that has filtered down to some of these lower court decisions," the lawyer added. For Democrats, Trump's public break with the Federalist Society — along with another move to refuse to cooperate with the American Bar Association, which traditionally provides recommendations on judicial nominees — are part of the same trend. "They don't want anyone looking over the shoulders of nominees to find out what they believe, what they've said and what they've done," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday during the first hearing for Trump's new wave of nominees. So far, Trump has announced two nominees to the influential federal appeals courts, as well as nine district court nominees. In addition to Bove, the other appeals court nominee is Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been tapped for a seat on the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. While Bove is not viewed as the type of nominee Leo might suggest, Hermandorfer is seen as a traditional Federalist Society pick. She served as a law clerk for Barrett and Alito, as well as for Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge. Hermandorfer has also been involved in some culture war litigation while serving under Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. She is 'very much in the Trump 1.0 Federalist Society mode,' said Russell Wheeler, a scholar at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution who tracks judicial nominations. Five of Trump's district court nominees are from Florida, and four are from Missouri. Hermandorfer, joined by the Missouri nominees. appeared at the confirmation hearing Wednesday where she said her job would not be to do the president's bidding. "That would not be my role. My role would be to carry out my oath,' she said. Hermandorfer called the Federalist Society, of which she is a member, a "wonderful place" to discuss issues with other lawyers. According to the federal judiciary, there are 49 pending vacancies, with only three of them on the appeals courts. Another three have announced plans to step down. The Republican lawyer close to the White House said it is a little early to know how different Trump's second-term picks will be from the first because the president got off to a slow start in nominating his first batch of judges. Trump may struggle to match the numbers of his first term, in part because this time around there are not as many vacancies as there were in 2017. Then, Trump benefited from a Republican Senate that blocked many of President Barack Obama's picks, including his nominee to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland. Legal activists tend to focus more on federal appeals court nominees than district court nominees because they have more power to change the law and are often more likely to be tipped for potential slots on the Supreme Court. There are currently 24 Republican-appointed appeals court judges in total who are eligible for retirement, according to Wheeler. Generally, judges are more likely to step down when a president of the same party who appointed them is in office. Even if Trump wants to depart from the Leo playbook, he will find it difficult to find qualified conservative lawyers who do not have some links with the Federalist Society, Whelan said. 'If you are looking for talented lawyers with the sort of experience that would make them good judges, most of the people you are looking at are going to be Federalist Society types,' he added. Kenny, for example, who holds daily oversight over nominations at the White House, 'is definitely a proud member of the Federalist Society,' the lawyer said. 'But he's also going to follow the administration's lead on the kinds of judges they want.' Nunziata said it's up to GOP senators to push back on nominees like Bove, warning that acquiescing would send a signal to Trump that he has a 'free hand' to nominate more individuals like him, including to a possible Supreme Court vacancy. 'I hope there will be pushback. Time will tell,' he said, citing former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's key role in steering Trump's first-term judicial nominees. 'I would expect him to be alarmed by this turn and to fight against it with his remaining time in the Senate.' McConnell's office declined to comment. Democrats say that with nominees like Bove, Trump is making it more explicit that he simply wants loyalists. 'He's putting in all the people that will support him, or have a relationship to him,' Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said. 'That's what it's all about for the president. … He just wants people who will support what he wants.' But when asked if she believes Republicans will stand up to some of Trump's judicial nominees, Hirono responded wryly. 'Of course not,' she said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Overruling Trump's Tariffs Should Be an Easy Decision for SCOTUS
Welcome to the inaugural issue of Injustice System, a newsletter about law, politics, and history. Thanks for reading! Let's talk tariffs. Specifically, let's talk about why overruling President Donald Trump's tariffs should be an easy decision for the Supreme Court when the appropriate case arrives before the justices, which will probably happen sooner rather than later. Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs on much of the world. Yet the president has no such authority under Article II of the Constitution, which enumerates the limited powers of the executive branch. Instead, the authority "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," as well as the authority "to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations," resides exclusively in Article I, which is where the limited powers of the legislative branch are detailed. So, Trump's trade war violates the constitutional separation of powers because Trump has unlawfully exercised power that the Constitution placed in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the president. If that sounds familiar, it is probably because the Supreme Court said much the same in 2023 when it declared former President Joe Biden's unilateral student debt cancellation plan to be unlawful because it was an example of "the Executive seizing the power of the Legislature." But let's say that a majority of the Supreme Court is not fully persuaded by the separation of powers case against Trump's tariffs. Are there other grounds on which Trump's tariffs might be struck down? Why yes, there are. Under a legal principle known as the "major questions doctrine," when the executive branch seeks to wield significant regulatory power, it must first point to an unambiguous delegation of such power by Congress to the executive. Or, as Justice Neil Gorsuch described it in his concurrence in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the doctrine requires that "when [executive] agencies seek to resolve major questions, they at least act with clear congressional authorization and do not 'exploit some gap, ambiguity, or doubtful expression in Congress's statutes to assume responsibilities far beyond' those the people's representatives actually conferred on them." According to Gorsuch, "the doctrine addresses 'a particular and recurring problem: [executive] agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.'" Trump's tariffs fit the description. As a pretext for his trade war, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Yet "the statute is silent on tariffs, and for good reason. It was never meant, and has never been understood, to authorize the President to impose them." That observation comes from a superb friend of the court brief filed by a cross-ideological group of legal scholars and former government officials in support of the legal challenge against Trump's tariffs. Their brief thoroughly explains why Trump's use of the IEEPA to fundamentally remake the American economy cannot be reconciled with any law passed by Congress. In short, Trump's tariffs flunk the test imposed by the major questions doctrine. But what about the venerable principle of judicial restraint, you might ask. Doesn't the Supreme Court owe some deference to the president on tariffs because the closely related issue of global trade has national security implications? In a word, no. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court famously rejected President Harry Truman's claim that his "inherent power" as president allowed the executive to effectively nationalize the nation's steel mills during a labor strike in order to keep the mills running. According to Truman, the presence of U.S. forces in Korea justified his actions. "In order to assure the continued availability of steel and steel products during the existing emergency," Truman wrote in Executive Order 10340, "it is necessary that the United States take possession of and operate the plants, facilities, and other property of the said companies." But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. "The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress—it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President," the Court observed. Yet "the Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times." In other words, there are constitutional limits that the executive may not cross, even—or especially—in the name of national security. If the Supreme Court is serious about enforcing either the separation of powers or the major questions doctrine—meaning, if the Supreme Court is serious about serving as a principled tribunal of justice no matter which political party happens to occupy the White House—then Trump's trade war will be ruled a constitutional loser. We'll see what happens. When the heavy metal band Slayer announced that it was calling it quits in 2019, I knew I had to catch at least one of the final shows. As luck would have it, the farewell tour rolled through Albany, New York, which is just an hour or so away from the small Hudson River Valley town I call home. I know this sort of music is not for everyone. It's noisy and abrasive and the lyrics are not exactly brimming with uplifting messages. But I've loved it for almost as long as I can remember. I first saw Slayer at a packed-beyond-capacity club in Detroit in 1991. My fellow headbangers will understand what I mean when I say that Kerry King was still regularly wearing the big nail-studded armband in those days. I was fortunate enough to see them play live many more times in the decades to come. And now, to my delight, the band is sorta back from the dead. They've played a handful of reunion shows and recently announced a big gig happening this fall in Hershey, Pennsylvania. I suspect that at least a few of you out there reading this newsletter might even be planning to go. Who knows? Maybe we'll run into each other in the beer line. The post Overruling Trump's Tariffs Should Be an Easy Decision for SCOTUS appeared first on
