Missouri to track, report immigration status under Kehoe executive order
ST. LOUIS – Missouri is set to become one of the first states to require police to track and report the immigration status of people involved in crimes.
Gov. Mike Kehoe's executive order, which is part of his Safer Missouri Initiative, has sparked debate. Some say it is about public safety, while others fear it could discourage crime reporting and create mistrust in immigrant communities.
'The states don't enforce immigration law. They're not supposed to anyway, according to the Supreme Court. That is a federal responsibility. So why does the state need to collect this data as a part of its criminal database for people who have committed crimes in this state?' Missouri and Illinois immigration attorney David Cox said.
Members of the immigrant community in St. Louis spoke off-camera that they're afraid this policy could put them in danger. Some say they fear reporting crimes or cooperating with police, and others are in the middle of the visa process and are afraid they'll be mistakenly labeled as undocumented.
'I'm talking to people every day who call just to ask, 'Is there something I should be worried about? What can I do? How can I protect myself?' And those are hard conversations to have sometimes. People have called me in tears,' Cox added.
Archdiocese rebukes St. Louis pastor's testimony on Missouri transgender bills
The policy comes after a series of crimes involving undocumented immigrants, including the death of St. Louis Police Officer David Lee. Missouri leaders like Sen. Josh Hawley have pointed to these cases in calls for stricter immigration laws.
'If you are here illegally, you shouldn't be here at all. Number 1: That in itself is a crime. And number 2, if you commit a crime of violence, you ought to be out of this country in a heartbeat,' the senator said.
But Cox questions whether this new policy would have prevented those tragedies.
'I don't think there was a particular oversight that resulted in that tragedy happening. The person happened to be an immigrant, an undocumented immigrant, but other than that chance item, I'm not sure a law like this will change anything like this in the future,' Cox said.
Meanwhile, St. Louis Metropolitan Police and St. Louis County Police say they have yet to receive guidance from the state on how to implement this order.
Several people in the immigrant community expressed how they are left wondering whether they'll be unfairly targeted and what will happen next.
The Department of Public Safety did not give a specific date but says implementation will take place in the coming weeks.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
44 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. _____
