'Alligator Alcatraz' immigrant detainees are held without charges and barred from legal access, lawyers say
But Nicholas Meros, an attorney representing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, said the situation had evolved since the civil rights groups' lawsuit was filed July 16. Video-conference rooms had been set up so detainees can talk to attorneys, and in-person meetings between detainees and attorneys had started.
"There have been a number of facts that have changed," Meros said during Monday's hearing
U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz, an appointee of President Donald Trump, didn't make an immediate ruling. He asked the civil rights attorneys to refile their complaint to consolidate their pleadings as a request for a preliminary injunction, and he set a briefing schedule that will end with an in-person court hearing on Aug. 18.
The judge warned that his role was to provide relief to any proven constitutional violations and said that "attempts to transform the court into the warden of 'Alligator Alcatraz' is not going to happen here." The judge also allowed the civil rights groups to argue for the release of any agreements between the federal and state governments showing who has authority over the detention center, a murky issue since it opened a month ago.
"And that's part of the problem — who is doing what in this facility?" Ruiz said.
The lawsuit is the second one challenging "Alligator Alcatraz." Environmental groups last month sued federal and state officials asking that the project built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades be halted because the process didn't follow state and federal environmental laws.
Attorneys for the state of Florida have argued in both cases that the federal court's southern district in Florida was the wrong venue since the airstrip is located in neighboring Collier County, which is a part of the middle district, even though the property is owned by Miami-Dade County. A hearing over whether the southern district venue is proper in the environmental case is set for Wednesday.
Critics have condemned the facility as a cruel and inhumane threat to detainees, while DeSantis and other Republican state officials have defended it as part of the state's aggressive push to support President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has praised Florida for coming forward with the idea, as the department looks to significantly expand its immigration detention capacity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Free trade carveouts key in potential deal between U.S. and Canada: business groups
Business leaders and academics say they hope to see Canada and the U.S. maintain free trade protections for most goods once an agreement is reached, even if the negotiations can't stave off certain sectoral tariffs. It's unclear if the two countries will stick to the Aug. 1 deadline for wrapping up talks, as Prime Minister Mark Carney said Monday negotiations were in an "intense phase" but U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters last week that Canada wasn't a priority for his administration. Whether a deal is announced Friday or later, Canadian Federation of Independent Business president Dan Kelly says his organization's members feel "a good chunk" of trade must remain tariff-free in order for talks to be considered successful. He says it wouldn't be a win for Canada if the trade agreement ends up looking similar to the deal struck by the U.S. with the European Union on Sunday. That framework imposes a 15 per cent tariff on most goods imported into the U.S., including European automobiles, and no carveouts for key products like pharmaceuticals and steel. Kelly says Canadian business leaders will also be watching to find out what levies will remain on imports from the U.S., noting Canada's ongoing retaliatory tariffs "are really crippling small businesses even more than the U.S. tariffs." This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2025. Sammy Hudes, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Epstein accomplice Maxwell angles for a Trump pardon. Would she lie to help him?
Doesn't it make sense to wonder if Maxwell is willing to lie to help herself, if that also helps Trump – an old friend, who was known for hanging around with Epstein? We don't know what Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted child sex trafficker and former paramour/accomplice to the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, said during a pair of prison interviews July 24-25 with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. And we don't know how Maxwell, now serving a 20-year federal prison sentence for her despicable crimes, will respond to a subpoena issued July 23 by the Republican-controlled U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. But now seems like a good time to ask if anyone should believe anything Maxwell has to say about anything. Ghislaine Maxwell has a history of lying about Jeffrey Epstein Here's what we do know: Maxwell is in prison because she recruited girls under the age of 18, groomed them to be sexually abused by Epstein and then sometimes joined in. "The victims were as young as 14," according to the Department of Justice. Maxwell took these girls to the movies and on shopping trips. She asked them about school, while teaching them to submit to whatever Epstein desired. And then she denied all that. Here's another thing we know: The federal grand jury in New York that indicted her in July 2020 – during President Donald Trump's first term – called her a liar. That indictment included two counts of perjury for allegedly lying while testifying under oath in a civil court case about Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls. Opinion: Republicans in Congress head home to angry voters. So much for summer break. The Department of Justice and Maxwell's lawyers mutually agreed to drop those perjury charges in 2022, soon after her conviction, if the court did not grant her a retrial. Prosecutors did that to help the victims whom Epstein and Maxwell abused avoid another public spectacle. But Maxwell's grand jury indictment cites her own words from that civil case – "I don't know what you're talking about" – as she denied the kinds of sexual abuse that the trial jury later convicted her for. It's not a stretch to think the trial jury would have convicted her for perjury, too, if those charges had not been spun off into a separate case. Why should we believe Maxwell now? So why believe what she has to say now, as she sits behind bars in a Florida prison with a projected release date of July 17, 2037? Doesn't it make more sense to wonder if Maxwell is willing to lie to help herself, if that also helps Trump, who was known for hanging around with Epstein, a politician who is again president and now is talking about how he has the power to pardon Maxwell? Trump, who once exploited conspiracy theories about Epstein's 2019 suicide in federal prison – also during his first term – for political benefit, is now trapped in a quagmire of his own making. He and the people he appointed to run the Department of Justice tried to back out of a promise to release documents about Epstein's crimes, infuriating his MAGA base and prompting a bipartisan call from Congress for more transparency. So it's worth a close look at what Trump has said over the years about Maxwell, whom he socialized with in New York and Palm Beach, along with Epstein. Trump, speaking at the White House in July 2020, just 19 days after the horrible allegations were made public in Maxwell's indictment, was asked if she might "turn in powerful men" while seeking leniency in court. Trump pretended that he didn't know much about Maxwell case while twice saying "I wish her well." Opinion: MAGA is realizing Trump lies. How can they trust anything he says on Epstein? Trump's kind regards for an accused child sex trafficker drew bipartisan rebukes from Congress. That didn't stop him from offering the same sentiment two weeks later, again offering good wishes for Maxwell in an HBO interview. Will Trump's administation protect, believe Maxwell? Five years later, Trump is still playing dumb about Maxwell – and hoping his supporters play dumb as well – as he openly floats talk of a pardon while also claiming to be out of loop in a scandal that is consuming his presidency. Trump on July 25 noted that he has the power to pardon Maxwell while also claiming "it's something I have not thought about." Three days later, on a golfing trip to Scotland, Trump repeated that he has the power to pardon Maxwell, while adding that "nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it.' Well, check your social media feed, Mr. President, because Maxwell's lawyer, the same guy who sat with her for two full days of interviews by the Department of Justice, filed an appeal of her conviction on July 28 with the U.S. Supreme Court while making a direct appeal in a social media post aimed at you. Attorney David Oscar Markus, posting on X, wrote, "We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes." The appeal is based on the theory that a 2007 plea agreement that won Epstein a lenient prison sentence for soliciting minors for prostitution should have also protected Maxwell from prosecution. If Maxwell is going to win some kind of protection right now, Trump is her best bet. But this scandal has metastasized for the president, and the very people he wishes to quiet down will certainly raise another ruckus if he pardons her. This is what passes for bipartisanship now: People on the left, right and center of the political spectrum are all wondering at once why anyone would believe anything Maxwell has to say. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
