US Supreme Court clears path for rapid deportations without hearings
UNITED STATES: In an important legal triumph for the Trump administration, the US Supreme Court on Monday revoked a jurisdictional block that had provisionally stopped extraditions of refugees to third countries without initially offering them an opportunity to appeal and informing them that they might face torture or harassment. In a recent Reuters report, the court's unspecified emergency directive, issued without clarification, permits immigration officials to continue expulsions while legal complications continue to unfold. Migrants lose due process protections under emergency ruling
The Supreme Court ruling directly impacts an earlier decision by US District Judge Brian Murphy, who prohibited the government from implementing such exclusions without due process of law. The court's conservative majority succeeded in the 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices delivering a scathing and unequivocal dissent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor panned the ruling as a 'gross abuse' of judicial power. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,' she wrote. Third-country deportations under fire
The decision focuses on the Trump administration's use of 'third-country' deportations, relocating migrants to countries other than their own, frequently volatile and risky. The Department of Homeland Security contended that the procedure is essential to exclude migrants found guilty of grave crimes when their home countries decline deportation. Refugees set aside for extradition to countries like South Sudan have purportedly committed offences including manslaughter and armed robbery, the administration maintained.
But Judge Murphy had earlier found that the administration desecrated the US Constitution's due process defences by not permitting migrants a reasonable opportunity to raise safety concerns before extradition. He mentioned an attempt to send them to South Sudan — a country which the State Department warns poses life-threatening risks — as an example of the plan's irresponsible implementation. While Monday's Supreme Court decision rescinded the April 18 sanction, Murphy later explained that a distinct May 21 directive concerning deportations to South Sudan 'remains in full force and effect'.
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, called the Supreme Court's move 'horrifying', cautioning that it takes away fundamental legal protections. 'These protections have been the last defence against torture and death,' she said. White House cheers win, critics sound alarm
The White House and Trump bureaucrats rejoiced at the decision. 'The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,' said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'Fire up the deportation planes,' added DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
But the court's action also triggered alarm within the immigration advocates' circle and legal academics. Sotomayor, in her dissenting statement, reproached the administration for 'openly flouting' court directives in numerous cases, including the contentious employment of Guantanamo Bay as a transfer point for expulsions to El Salvador.
'This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance,' Sotomayor warned. 'Nor, I fear, will it be the last.' See also Shock, fear and sadness grip Australia's 'bushfire refugees'
In the meantime, information has emerged of probable future extraditions to Libya, another nation long disapproved by the U.S. for its handling of captives and convicts, driving additional apprehension about where this legal precedent could lead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Powell says Fed needs to manage against risk tariff inflation proves persistent
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration's tariff plans may well just cause a one-time jump in prices, but the risk that it could cause more persistent inflation is large enough for the central bank to be careful in considering further rate cuts, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told a US Senate panel on Wednesday (Jun 25). Though economic theory may point to tariffs as a one-off shock to prices, "that is not a law of nature," said Powell, detailing why the central bank wants more information about the ultimate level of tariffs and the way they impact pricing and public expectations about inflation before lowering borrowing costs any further. "If it comes in quickly and it is over and done, then yes, very likely it is a one-time thing," that won't lead to more persistent inflation, Powell said. But "it is a risk we feel. As the people who are supposed to keep stable prices, we need to manage that risk. That's all we're doing," through holding rates steady for now. The effects of tariffs "could be large or small. It is just something you want to approach carefully. If we make a mistake, people will pay the cost for a long time." Fed officials still expect to cut interest rates this year, but the timing is uncertain as officials wait on coming trade deadlines and hope for more certainty about the scope of the tariffs that will be imposed and the ways that rising import levies influence prices and economic growth. Two days of hearings did little to shift expectations around Fed policy, with investors still anticipating two rate cuts this year. But it did highlight the persistent rift between the Fed chair and President Donald Trump, who wants the Fed to cut rates immediately. Republican lawmakers in the House on Tuesday and in the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday pressed the Fed chair on why he seems reluctant to do so even though recent inflation data has been more moderate than expected. The tone at times contrasted with Powell's generally congenial relationship with Republican and most Democratic lawmakers during his seven years as chair. Ohio Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, echoing Trump's frequent criticism of Powell, accused him of shaping monetary policy through "a political lens, because you just don't like tariffs." "We got elected by millions of voters. You got elected by one person who doesn't want you to be in that job," Moreno said of Powell, who was promoted to Fed chair during Trump's first term. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, however, backed a more cautious approach to the issue, noting that major retailers like Walmart, with sophisticated data tools, were having trouble pinpointing how tariffs will affect prices and demand. "I'm just telling my colleagues we need to be realistic," Tillis said. Companies "have a lot of experts that probably are suggesting there may be some inflationary risk. We haven't realized it yet but I think we all need to keep our eyes open." While Powell was completing what was likely his second-to-last set of semiannual appearances on Capitol Hill, Trump said he had narrowed "to within three or four people" who he intends to nominate as a successor for when Powell's term as chair ends in May. The president's dismay with Powell is rooted in the central bank's refusal to cut interest rates as Trump's tariff plans have, in the view of a broad set of analysts and economists, raised the risk of higher inflation. DIFFERENT THIS TIME Powell, in response to other questions during the hearing, noted the Fed has no modern example of tariff increases of the size Trump is considering, with the tariffs Trump imposed in his first term far smaller than what seems likely now and enacted at a time when inflation was low. The fact that inflation has been above the Fed's 2 per cent target for roughly four years, Fed officials worry, may make a new surge in prices more likely to turn into a more persistent round of price increases. "This is different," Powell said. "There is not a modern precedent." Even with recent inflation more moderate than expected, the central bank expects rising import taxes will lead to higher inflation beginning this summer, Powell said, and the Fed won't be comfortable cutting interest rates until officials see if prices do begin to rise. "We should start to see this over the summer, in the June number and the July we don't, we are perfectly open to the idea that the pass-through (to consumers) will be less than we think, and if we do that will matter for policy," Powell said during the House hearing on Tuesday. Tariffs have already risen on some goods, but there is a coming Jul 9 deadline for higher levies on a broad set of countries, with no certainty about whether the Trump administration will back down to a 10 per cent baseline tariff that analysts are using as a minimum, or impose something more aggressive. The Fed has held its benchmark interest rate steady in the 4.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent range since December. Economic projections released by the Fed last week showed policymakers at the median do anticipate reducing the benchmark overnight rate half a percentage point by the end of the year. But within those projections is a clear divide between officials who take the inflation risk more seriously - seven of 19 policymakers see no rate cuts at all this year - and those who feel any tariff price shock will be less severe or quickly fade. Ten of the 19 see two or more rate reductions.
Straits Times
10 hours ago
- Straits Times
South Korean man's wrongful spy charges overturned, 58 years after execution
SEOUL - A man executed after wrongfully being convicted of spying for North Korea has been posthumously exonerated by a South Korean court, in a retrial held over half a century after his death. Court officials said on June 25 that the Supreme Court confirmed a lower court's not-guilty verdict for the late Oh Gyeong-mu, who was convicted of violating the National Security Act and now-defunct Anti-Communism Act in 1967. A separate retrial in the 2020s also cleared the charges against the younger brother and sister of the deceased. The Oh brothers were lured into North Korea in 1966 by their eldest brother, Mr Oh Gyeong-ji, where they were held for 40 days and subjected to ideological education by the Pyongyang regime. Upon returning to the South, both voluntarily turned themselves in to the authorities. However, prosecutors accused them of acting as North Korean spies, and the court ultimately convicted them on espionage charges. 'It cannot be considered that a legally-valid investigation was conducted on the accused, and their confession of crime can be seen as unlawfully acquired evidence through cruelty such as illegal arrest,' the 2023 ruling by Seoul Central District Court said, dismissing the confession as an evidence of crime. 'The court would like to offer its deepest condolences to the brutality imposed on the (Oh) family, due to their actions conducted out of love of their family,' it added. The prosecution challenged the decision, but both the appellate and the nation's highest court upheld the earlier ruling. The appellate court said Mr Oh Gyeong-mu meeting his older brother was to suggest he turn himself in, due to concern of their mother, and said there was no reason to believe he had any intent of helping the North. Brotherly love led to death and imprisonment Mr Oh Gyeong-dae, the younger-brother of Mr Oh Gyeong-mu, was a tangerine farmer on Jeju Island in 1966 when he was approached by their long-lost half-brother, Mr Oh Gyeong-ji The eldest of the three, Mr Oh Gyeong-ji, had gone missing during the 1950–53 Korean War. He asked Mr Oh Gyeong-dae to accompany him to Japan, but instead, took him to North Korea. After they returned to the South, Mr Oh Gyeong-ji threatened the youngest brother and forced him to arrange a meeting with Mr Oh Gyeong-mu, who was living in Seoul. The two younger brothers were tricked into going to North Korea, and were received education on ideology of the totalitarian Pyongyang regime before being released 40 days later. Mr Oh Gyeong-mu and Mr Oh Gyeong-dae turned themselves in to the South Korean authorities upon their return, but Seoul's regime under dictatorial leader Park Chung-hee used oppressive means such as torture to force them into false confessions. The older Oh was sentenced to death and the younger Oh received 15 years in prison in a 1967 verdict. The execution was carried out five years later Their younger sister was sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for five years, for knowingly aiding their spying activities. Mr Oh Gyeong-dae was cleared of his charges in November of 2020, and subsequent rulings have exonerated the wrongful charges against both his siblings. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Independent Singapore
11 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
US Supreme Court clears path for rapid deportations without hearings
UNITED STATES: In an important legal triumph for the Trump administration, the US Supreme Court on Monday revoked a jurisdictional block that had provisionally stopped extraditions of refugees to third countries without initially offering them an opportunity to appeal and informing them that they might face torture or harassment. In a recent Reuters report, the court's unspecified emergency directive, issued without clarification, permits immigration officials to continue expulsions while legal complications continue to unfold. Migrants lose due process protections under emergency ruling The Supreme Court ruling directly impacts an earlier decision by US District Judge Brian Murphy, who prohibited the government from implementing such exclusions without due process of law. The court's conservative majority succeeded in the 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices delivering a scathing and unequivocal dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor panned the ruling as a 'gross abuse' of judicial power. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,' she wrote. Third-country deportations under fire The decision focuses on the Trump administration's use of 'third-country' deportations, relocating migrants to countries other than their own, frequently volatile and risky. The Department of Homeland Security contended that the procedure is essential to exclude migrants found guilty of grave crimes when their home countries decline deportation. Refugees set aside for extradition to countries like South Sudan have purportedly committed offences including manslaughter and armed robbery, the administration maintained. But Judge Murphy had earlier found that the administration desecrated the US Constitution's due process defences by not permitting migrants a reasonable opportunity to raise safety concerns before extradition. He mentioned an attempt to send them to South Sudan — a country which the State Department warns poses life-threatening risks — as an example of the plan's irresponsible implementation. While Monday's Supreme Court decision rescinded the April 18 sanction, Murphy later explained that a distinct May 21 directive concerning deportations to South Sudan 'remains in full force and effect'. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, called the Supreme Court's move 'horrifying', cautioning that it takes away fundamental legal protections. 'These protections have been the last defence against torture and death,' she said. White House cheers win, critics sound alarm The White House and Trump bureaucrats rejoiced at the decision. 'The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,' said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'Fire up the deportation planes,' added DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. But the court's action also triggered alarm within the immigration advocates' circle and legal academics. Sotomayor, in her dissenting statement, reproached the administration for 'openly flouting' court directives in numerous cases, including the contentious employment of Guantanamo Bay as a transfer point for expulsions to El Salvador. 'This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance,' Sotomayor warned. 'Nor, I fear, will it be the last.' See also Shock, fear and sadness grip Australia's 'bushfire refugees' In the meantime, information has emerged of probable future extraditions to Libya, another nation long disapproved by the U.S. for its handling of captives and convicts, driving additional apprehension about where this legal precedent could lead.
