Trump appointee grilled in court about shuttering Homeland Security offices tasked with civil rights oversight
A federal judge said that she had concerns about being 'hoodwinked' by plans put forward in her courtroom Monday by a Trump appointee to rebuild three offices focused on civil rights oversight within the Department of Homeland Security that were eviscerated with mass layoffs set to take effect this week.
US District Judge Ana Reyes said that she found the three-plus hours of testimony from the appointee, US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Ronald Sartini, to be 'credible.'
The judge believed he was working in 'good faith' to come up with proposals for restaffing his office and the two others offices in the case before her, and that if those plans came to quick fruition, there would not be irreparable harm that would justify a court's intervention.
The administration's gutting of those offices comes as President Donald Trump is pushing – and at times overstepping – the law in his efforts to quickly fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of immigrants.
Reyes also said that a 'cynical view' of the state of play in the legal challenge was that the administration did not actually intend to restore those offices to their congressionally mandated functions, because their work might slow Trump's mass deportation agenda. She raised the possibility that Sartini's testimony was 'window dressing for the court' to head off the legal case, brought by advocacy groups that work on civil rights issues on behalf of migrants and are challenging the dismantling of those offices.
Sartini, who spent 16 years in various career positions within the federal government before his May appointment as CIS ombudsman, told the judge he believed DHS leadership when it told him that the offices would be up and running again. Legal arguments in the case will continue on Tuesday.
More than 300 total employees at the CIS ombudsman office, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman were put on administrative leave on March 21, in terminations that will take effect on Friday. Just a handful people – all at the executive level – are currently working across the three offices, Sartini testified Monday. He acknowledged that, particularly at the two offices he does not lead, statutorily mandated work is not being performed.
Sartini, however, defended the monthslong shutdown in work that is required by Congress. There was 'nothing' in law 'to preclude' a new administration from 'taking a beat,' he said, to decide whether there was a better way for those offices to operate.
Days before its workforce was put on leave, the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties opened an investigation into the controversial arrest of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who remains in detention while a separate court reviews the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to deport him.
The challengers in the case before Reyes – the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights foundation, Urban Justice, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition – have put forward examples of complaints they've filed with the oversight offices alleging sexual assault, medical neglect, abuse of force and other alleged civil rights violations by DHS officials.
The complaints prompted investigations that apparently halted with the rollout of the mass terminations, according to the court filings, or were filed around the time of the closures, including a complaint alleging due process violations with the administration's deportation of a 10-year-old citizen suffering brain cancer with her undocumented parents.
Sartini was pressed Monday about statements made by the administration in March – including in the layoff notices that went out to employees – that those oversight offices were being dissolved entirely. Though he has since been told internally that the administration intended to reopen those offices, Sartini said he was not aware of DHS communicating that change of plans to the public, stakeholders or even the fired employees.
He said, that before his formal appointment as CIS ombudsman, he was brought on around the time of the March 21 layoffs to review what duties those offices should be carrying out going forward.
'These offices were not the model of efficiency,' Sartini said, testifying that, before the layoffs, there was mismanagement, dysfunction and a bloated operation that duplicated work that was being done elsewhere in the agency.
Sartini is prepared to present to DHS leadership a proposal for rebuilding the offices with new hires, detailees and contractors. But, he said, it would be up to leadership whether his ideas were put into action and there was no meeting scheduled yet for leadership to hear his recommendations.
Reyes quizzed the official on how quickly the work could restart once his plans were presented and approved. She also asked a DHS lawyer present at the proceedings to call Sartini's point of contact in leadership mid-hearing to get a date on the books for such a meeting to happen. The lawyer later told Reyes that the leadership official, DHS acting general counsel Joseph Mazzara, was about to get on plane, and so the administration will be filing a response to the judge's query on Tuesday morning, ahead of more arguments on the legal issues in the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Associated Press
35 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
